David Cairns: In 2004 alone, 232 Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza strip into Israel, and there were 18 such attacks in the first two weeks of this year. Given Abu Mazen's recent welcome announcement on cracking down on terrorism in the Gaza strip, what help and assistance can the EU give to increase the security capacity of the Palestinian Authority, with specific reference to stopping the rockets from being smuggled into Gaza through Egypt in the first place?

Tam Dalyell: On what date was the British Government first consulted by the Americans about the winding-up of the survey group?

Douglas Alexander: In relation to what my hon. Friend describes as the winding-up of the survey group, it is the case that it continues to undertake work inside Iraq. It is certainly the case that Charles Duelfer has returned to the United States. None the less, the group continues to work closely with the multinational force.

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is clear that, with this Government's lead and the Prime Minister's personal commitment, we are taking a significant lead to support Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority. We are doing that in political terms with the meeting that is taking place here 1 March, but we are also doing it in practical terms, through the Department for International Development and through advice and funding support. We will continue to do that, and if those efforts are made and there is an increased focus on the part of the Palestinian Authority on improving its security performance, we will be better able to urge the Israeli Government to move forward with their commitment to the disengagement plan as a first step along the road to fulfilling the objectives of the road map.

Harry Barnes: I had the privilege of meeting the late Hadi Saleh, the former international secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Workers Trade Unions, when he came to the House and I chaired a meeting, that he addressed. During his hideous murder, lists of members of the IFTU were stolen from his home by terrorists. What can be done to allow trade unions to exercise security over information so that they are not dealt with in that way?

Bill Rammell: There is an issue over whether progress has been made since the immediate aftermath of the events in Tiananmen square. While we continue to have significant concerns about the situation in China, there has undoubtedly been some progress on human rights since those events, as has been acknowledged by past Governments. Given that, we must ask ourselves whether it is right, through the arms embargo, to lump China into the same bloc as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe. That is why we are reviewing the embargo. I repeat, however, that no arms sale that has been refused until now under the embargo would, to all intents and purposes, be possible under the code of conduct. It should also be made clear that most applications for arms exports to China that have been refused in recent years have already been refused under the EU code of conduct, not under the arms embargo.

Jonathan Sayeed: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for Sovereigns to be chosen by the House of Commons from among the immediate family of the preceding Sovereign; to provide that all Sovereigns so chosen shall cease to be Sovereign upon reaching the age of 75; to make consequential provision relating to Regencies, succession to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and the private estates of the Crown; and for connected purposes.
	I am a strong supporter of the monarchy. I believe that as a nation we owe this institution and its present incumbent a debt of gratitude as well as our allegiance. It is because of the selflessness of many recent monarchs, exemplified by Her Majesty the Queen, and the curb on elected tyranny that the institution provides that this apparently anachronistic institution continues to receive such widespread support. But if the monarchy is to continue to be the popular apex of an otherwise democratic pluralist state, it is right to consider whether it would be beneficial if, while retaining its traditional role, it evolved to meet modern demands and expectations. The danger is that without such evolution, the continued existence of an hereditary unreformed apex in a modern state will be pilloried as incongruous, and will be used to promote republican views.
	My proposals would enact three principles. The first is the end of succession based on male primogeniture. No account should be taken of either gender or order of birth in the determining of succession to the Crown, but this proposal would not affect the current heir. The second is the retirement of the sovereign at 75 years of age, although not in the case of our current monarch. Finally, public support for a successor should be demonstrated, possibly by Parliament sanctioning the choice of the heir from within the immediate children of the monarch, and members of the Commonwealth in which the sovereign remains the head of state should have the right to be consulted.
	It is important to make it clear at the outset that nothing in the Bill should be construed as an attack on the current sovereign, the heir or the institution of the monarchy. The changes that I propose would not affect the status of Her Majesty the Queen, or the role of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as her heir. Her Majesty has sworn the existing Coronation Oath, and Prince Charles has already been invested as her heir. It is only fair and proper that their position remain unchanged.
	The laws determining succession to the throne have their historical origins in the 17th century and the struggle between two different conceptions of monarchy: divine right, and the view that the sovereign's title rests on a willingness to rule within the law and through Parliament. The Queen rules not by simple hereditary right, as did James II, but because of the agreement by William and Mary to accept the constitutional arrangements in the 1689 Bill of Rights, then strengthened by the Act of Settlement. These rules of succession are based on the concept of primogeniture: male heirs take precedence and the Crown is offered automatically to the eldest son. It is a tradition that was historically reinforced by the feudal belief that men were better able to defend property and to lead armies into battle. This assessment of the differences in the capabilities of men and women has since been rendered irrelevant, as the modern responsibilities of the monarch have not extended to fighting in battle since 1742, when George II fought in the battle of Dettingen.
	A law of succession under which female and male heirs are considered equal has both historical and international precedence. Such precedence is found under the ancient Irish Brehon law and in the Iceni. In 1980, Sweden modernised its Act of Succession and moved to full cognatic primogeniture; a similar debate has since arisen in Spain. Her Majesty the Queen has proved that a woman is capable of fulfilling the modern leadership and advocacy roles of the British monarch as well as any man. Some of the finest English monarchs have been female, and some of the worst, male. We no longer live in need of a feudal monarchy, and the monarchy will be strengthened if it acknowledges that fact.
	Secondly, I propose that the requirement placed upon the monarch to serve until death be removed and replaced by retirement at 75. In an age when people are living longer, and in which the monarch has fulfilled a lifetime of responsibility, service and duty, it seems sensible that they should have the right to a retirement away from the commitments of the Crown, and without thereby calling the institution of monarchy into question. This change is more likely to ensure a suitable and able monarch by virtue of age, and it would allow the heir to succeed to the Crown earlier, rather than waiting all their life in the wings. It is reasonable to expect that without such changes, an heir will only ascend to the throne having reached an age at which most of their contemporaries are already drawing their pensions.
	My third proposal—that public support for a successor be demonstrated, perhaps by Parliament sanctioning choice of the heir from within the immediate children of the monarch—is the oldest idea of the three. It is witnessed in European history through the Elector of Hanover, and in Britain by the Act of Settlement of 1701, which states that it is for Parliament to decide the title to the throne. It is reinforced by the elective element at the coronation ceremony, for through the coronation oath, the sovereign acknowledges their duty to preserve the liberty of their subjects, while their representatives symbolically—and consequentially—pledge their allegiance to the sovereign.
	My ideas go further than simply bringing the monarchy into line with the basic legal and societal values of equality; they move towards reflecting a value that is at the heart of our democratic society: choice. The populace could have an indirect input into choosing the monarch, and the potential monarch could choose whether to accept the responsibilities and duties of the position. For an unwilling monarch is more likely to be an unfit monarch, and not all offspring wish to follow in their parents' footsteps. In this respect, the royal family is probably no different from our own.
	Historical precedents for these proposed changes exist alongside modern impetus, but inertia risks the monarchy being portrayed as increasingly remote and anachronistic. With that in mind, support for considering these ideas would, over time, allow change to be carried out calmly and with due consideration, rather than waiting until our hand is forced. For I want us to continue to have a sovereign—fit by the virtues of age, inclination, ability and history of service—whom we both need and from whom our nation will continue to benefit.

Patrick Cormack: Well, I have heard a few things in my time, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who has performed such signal service as the chairman of the parliamentary choir, should stick to singing. Not only does he make a nicer noise and rather more sense then; he generally reads from a better script. If I had had that text before me when I was a schoolmaster many years ago, I would have given it a gamma minus as a sixth-form essay and would not have allowed it to be discussed at great length. My hon. Friend has produced a most extraordinary tissue of ridiculous arguments. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) reminds me in an interjection, his speech contained an extraordinary amount of ageist claptrap. The present sovereign is above the retirement age that he would prefer, and that is an oblique attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). We believe that people can serve extremely well way beyond the age of 75.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire did a little historical research, but he did not investigate the Hanoverians much. His proposal would bring back the heir's party and the sovereign's party all over again. It would politicise the monarchy by making people in this House take sides for or against a particular potential heir.
	The whole thing is absurd. In all my time in the House, I have never heard a less credible argument. I never thought that the day would come when a Conservative colleague—one who belongs to the constitutional party—would propose so much claptrap and nonsense to the House. This Bill should be seen off immediately.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.

David Davis: I beg to move,
	That this House calls for a delay in the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 in the light of concerns expressed by doctors, senior police officers and members of the judiciary that the Act will lead to increased health and policing problems; is concerned about the increase in violent crimes since 1998, half of which are attributed to alcohol misuse; recognises that drunken revellers are turning town and city centres into no-go areas, thus putting an increasing burden on health and police resources, and predicts that the implementation of the Act will exacerbate these problems; is further concerned about increased alcohol consumption and believes that extended opening hours will have an adverse serious effect on health of the nation; and regrets that the Government has fundamentally failed to deal with the problem of binge drinking before proceeding with the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003.
	I am conscious of a slight irony as I open this debate. After all, in recent times the Government have shown a distinct interest in telling us what to eat, what to do in our spare time and how to raise our children. In terms of sheer nannying, the Government have few equals. However, although there is genuine concern about this matter among experts, professionals and the general public, the Government are taking the exact opposite approach. I shall argue today that, by pressing ahead with 24-hour drinking, the Government are neglecting their responsibilities. Once again, they are displaying a perverse sense of priorities and an arrogant disregard for all contrary opinion.
	Britain is now one of the worst countries in Europe for binge drinking. It begins with the young. Young people under 16 drink twice as much as they did a decade ago. A third of all British 15-year-olds say that they have been drunk at some time in their lives. That compares to just one in 10 in France and Italy. The British Medical Journal reports that more than 2,000 drunken children are admitted to hospital every year.
	However, it is not just a young person's problem. Overall, Britons are drinking 12 per cent. more today than in 1997. One adult man in three now exceeds the recommended guidelines on alcohol consumption, and the figure for women is one in five. UK consumers spend more of their disposable income on alcohol than they do on personal goods and services, fuel and power, or tobacco.
	Some might say that that is their choice, but the annual cost of crime and antisocial behaviour linked to alcohol misuse is estimated to be more than £7 billion. The cost of productivity lost as a result of alcohol misuse is estimated to be more than £6 billion. Every year, 17 million working days are lost because of alcohol-related absence.
	The problem is about more than just money. First, there is the cost to our health. Liver disease is now an increasingly frequent cause of death. The incidence of liver cirrhosis is rising among 20 and 30-year-olds, and 70 per cent of all weekend night-time admissions to accident and emergency departments are linked to alcohol. That is a problem that our already over worked doctors and nurses could do without.
	Secondly, there is the crime and disorder cost. Since 1998, violent crime has increased by 83 per cent. There are now over a million violent crimes each year, and the police say that alcohol is largely to blame for this increase. Every week in England and Wales, there are 23,000 incidents of alcohol-related violence and 360 drink-related sexual assaults. Around a third of all domestic violence is related to alcohol misuse.
	Third, there is the cost to us all of binge drinking. The rise in binge drinking is having a disastrous effect on our towns and cities. The delicately termed night-time economy can mean a lifetime of misery for those unfortunate enough to live in the vicinity of late-opening pubs and clubs. Their sleep is disturbed. Their gardens get filled with litter, and worse. They fear to go out onto their own streets at night, and they cannot escape because the value of their houses is cut by 20 per cent. or more. Ask any family in a town or city centre up and down the country what is the biggest threat to their quality of life and it will not take them long to mention drunken louts hanging around the streets.

David Davis: I am coming to exactly that point now. Just before the 2001 general election, the Labour party texted voters saying:
	"Cldnt give a XXXX 4 last ordrs? Vote Labour 4 xtra time".
	That is the motive behind what we hear today. When the Licensing Bill was first introduced, the Conservative spokesman raised concerns about the potential for a decline
	"in civilised behaviour on our streets as a result of flexible drinking hours".
	She described it presciently as a "leap in the dark", a phrase that was used later by the previous Home Secretary when he expressed his fears about it. But it is undoubtedly true—as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out—that people on both sides of the House largely accepted the Government's arguments that relaxation of the licensing laws would improve the situation, not make it worse. Hon. Members accepted those arguments on the basis of information provided by the Government.
	There have been a number of allegations in the press about Government cover-ups and misleading information, and it is an extremely serious charge to allege that the Government have misled the House. If proven, it would normally require a Minister to resign. I do not know whether the Government's extremely partial stance was deliberate, the result of incoherence between Departments or a matter of simple incompetence. My review of the Government's pronouncements during and since the proceedings of the Licensing Act 2003 have led me to believe that they have been literally economical with the truth. I listened very carefully to the explanation from the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

David Davis: If the hon. Gentleman waits a few minutes, he will hear exactly what I am going to argue. It is not quite as foolish and short term as that.
	Let us consider what else was not said. We finally discover that the Home Office itself had very serious concerns about the Act. The former Home Secretary, as I said earlier, described the proposal as
	"a leap in the dark".
	Ellie Roy, the Home Office's crime reduction director, told a meeting of officials from Downing street, the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that there was
	"widespread concern that the licensing act will make matters worse".
	She was supported by Leigh Lewis, a permanent secretary at the Home Office and the Government's most senior crime-fighting mandarin. At a meeting in February to discuss "Home Office concerns with the Licensing Act", Lewis outlined official unpublished research showing links between binge drinking and violence. He said:
	"Violent crime was up 14 per cent., a significant proportion was taking place in proximity to licensed premises . . . Stranger crime was increasing significantly; and 47 per cent. of the victims of violent crime believed that their assailant was under the influence of alcohol".
	None of these facts or expert opinions, available to the Government at the time, was put into the public domain during the passage of the Act—not one of them—and many of them were actively withheld.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has an interesting view of government and opposition. He assumes that we have to assume that the Government will tell lies. That is what his remarks amount to.
	Let us be clear. No one objects to anyone having a good time; no one wants to stop people from having fun or enjoying themselves. Of course, it is true that the vast majority of people can be trusted to behave responsibly and not to cause trouble for others, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the Government's clear decision to allow pubs to open for 24 hours a day—a decision that international evidence suggests could lead to greater irresponsible drinking.
	In Western Australia, an extension of bar closing times to l am led to a rise in alcohol consumption, violence and drunkenness. In Scotland, one newspaper reported a
	"huge increase in violent crime in some of Edinburgh's most lively areas",
	with one senior police officer directly linking this to the increase in the number of licensed premises. In Ireland, the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000 ushered in an era of more violence, more damage, and more disorder. The Irish Times reported that
	"the consequences of excessive drinking are visible late at night on the streets of our cities, towns and villages. They are reflected in crowded accident and emergency wards in hospitals and, all too frequently, victims of alcohol-related violence end up on mortuary slabs".
	The paper was clear what was responsible: It said:
	"The rise in alcohol consumption was facilitated by longer pub opening hours."
	The mess caused by Ireland's Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000 had to be followed by tough measures in the Intoxicating Liquor Acts 2003 and 2004. We can avoid the need for such a legislative onslaught here simply by delaying the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that the genesis of licensing law reform came in 1995 when the then Conservative Government produced a measure, as part of their deregulation initiative, to extend the opening hours of pubs until midnight? That was passed in the House without question and failed only when it was voted down in the House of Lords. The idea of extending licensing hours comes from the last Conservative Government.

Charles Clarke: I am going to make a little progress.
	On the first question, evidence shows that liberalising licensing hours does not necessary lead to the increased use of alcohol. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden says that he is looking for evidence, so let me simply cite the effect of changes in this country.
	Several well-documented conclusions were drawn from the change to all-day opening in Scotland in 1976, which I shall cite to inform the House, as the right hon. Gentleman would want me to. In 1974, average spending on alcohol in Scotland was greater than in England and Wales, but following the change to the licensing laws, the gap narrowed to the point where in 1983—seven years after the changes—the average Scottish household was spending 7 per cent. less than the UK average.
	To address the point made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), drunk-driving convictions in Scotland increased by 1.2 per cent., compared with an increase of 36 per cent. in England and Wales over the same period. Violence against the person increased in Scotland by 16.7 per cent., compared with 43.8 per cent. in England and Wales.
	Convictions for under-age drinking fell by 18.6 per cent. in Scotland in the four years after reform, compared with a rise of more than 23 per cent. in England and Wales. Convictions for drunkenness in Scotland fell by 13.6 per cent. in the five years following the change, compared with a rise of 13.1 per cent. in England and Wales. In the 19 to 26 age group, the decline in Scotland was 14.1 per cent., compared with a rise of 19.2 per cent. in England and Wales. Those were the effects of the changes—

Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend is entirely right—that is the question that must be addressed. People of good will can come to different views of the potential change; I simply place in evidence the fact that where change has taken place, it has not led to the increase in consumption that was feared—in fact, the reverse has happened. I accept that many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others, have, for reasons of perfect propriety, taken the view that the proposed step is risky and undesirable; but the principal force of my argument is that we should not entangle the debate on licensing hours with the debate on how to fight the impact of over-consumption of alcohol, alcohol-related crime and so on. Both are important issues that must be given proper consideration, but they are separate: the link between the two is not made and should not be thought to have been made.

Charles Clarke: I agree with part of that statement. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that in places like Nottingham city centre we need a package of measures to deal with the ill. I know about Nottingham—many people have spoken to me about the situation there and I have discussed it with the chief constable. I understand that we need a set of measures to target that particular problem in a focused way. That is why, last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety announced a set of measures to do just that, including the establishment of alcohol disorder zones. I cannot predict what will happen, but I would be surprised if Nottingham did not fall within the relevant category. Also announced were powers to enable the immediate closure of establishments—for making under-age sales, for example—and to tackle irresponsible promotions. We shall also review the penalties for alcohol-related disorder. Why? Because with each of those measures, we acknowledge the truth of the right hon. Gentleman's words: it is necessary to move away from any idea of accommodating the problem of alcohol-fuelled disorder and toward its eradication through the type of measure that I have suggested. The key point is that those measures stand in their own terms. They are designed to deal with the situation in Romford, Nottingham and other areas, irrespective of the issues relating to licensing flexibility.

Charles Clarke: I can answer that question unequivocally: yes. I cite an example not from the Wirral but from my own constituency, where precisely these events happened. A licence was granted on appeal. There were precisely the legal issues that my right hon. Friend has described. It was granted despite the opposition of both the local authority and the police. I strongly hold the view that these measures, for the first time, will give a far increased power, compared with the previous situation, to tackle precisely the abuse that my right hon. Friend describes.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. One of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced on Friday was designed specifically to encourage that approach. We intend to offer support to the alcohol industry in banning irresponsible promotions. We want to see all promotions that encourage speed drinking ended. These are promotions such as, "All you can drink for X99", or, "All girls drink free between 11 and 12." We want to see a set of measures that will strengthen the voluntary regulation of the industry. We are supporting the British Beer and Pub Association and others in developing guidance to owners and operators that will ban irresponsible drink promotions. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking.

Charles Clarke: I am happy with that. More importantly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is happy with that.
	My hon. Friend is on to a correct point in saying that it is critical to ensure that Members and others should press their local authorities precisely to take the action that is necessary to deal with the situation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is of the view that in the process of implementing these changes, and if it emerges that there are genuine constraints in the guidelines that need to be addressed, the situation will be addressed. At present, we are categoric that the guidelines are right to deal with these matters. As I said a short while ago, I ask all applicants to ensure that all applications in this process of renewal are properly assessed and that the opportunity is taken to do that in detail.
	The weakest position will arise where a local authority and a local crime reduction partnership have not properly assessed what strategically must be done to attack the problem in a particular community. It is part of the strength of our democracy that different issues arise in different areas. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will put pressure on their crime reduction partnerships and local authorities to address the issue in the proper way.
	The measures to which I have referred are substantial in range. A flexible range of measures will be available after review that hit profits in areas where there is abuse that needs to be dealt with through, for example, a temporary or permanent reduction in trading hours. The maximum fine for selling to under-18s is increased from £1,000 to £5,000. The new licensing fee package has been announced and we believe that it will make things more effective. I have referred to the banning of irresponsible promotions and other issues that need to be tackled in that area.
	I shall focus for a moment on alcohol disorder zones, which will create a direct link between the level of disorder in a locality and the financial contribution that is required from the industry. I believe that the zones will act as a powerful incentive for the industry to get its own house in order in any given locality. That is why I so strongly support the zones. Before an alcohol disorder zone is imposed, operators will be given a warning. They will be given a chance to work with the police and the council to agree an action plan for improvement. This approach is not draconian and arbitrary. It is designed to ensure that everybody takes the issue seriously and addresses it properly. This is the right approach and the right way to go forward.
	We are establishing a 24-hour closure power against premises that repeatedly sell to under-18s. I do not believe that the family pub will be threatened by that because they do not repeatedly sell to under-18s. The power will apply to both on and off-licences, which is a strength of the proposals. The power will be triggered where evidence is gathered to suggest persistent selling to under-18s.

Charles Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is a point that I raised with the police when I first met them to discuss these matters. There is an issue about resources, which we are tackling. There is an issue also about new powers, which we are addressing in the way that I have described. There is also an issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, about the use of existing powers so that there is proper enforcement.
	I can say only two things at this juncture. First, the greater powers that we have given to local government, working with the police, will strengthen the ability to enforce. That will be their direct result. Secondly, my colleagues in the police have been clear in acknowledging that there is a need to act more on the enforcement side. To be frank, the fact that we have given them what they are looking for in this regard will enable us more effectively to carry through our policy.
	We already have a number of measures in place to tackle the problem of alcohol-fuelled disorder. The police enforcement campaigns, the alcohol harm reduction strategy, the Christmas drinking campaigns and the introduction of the new fixed penalty notices are having an effect. Part of the industry is already raising its game and acting responsibly, and we welcome that. However, we need to do far more. The measures proposed last Friday in the consultation paper are a robust package to ensure that the industry and individuals take their full responsibility for their part in the problems of alcohol-related disorder. We must keep clear in our minds the need to have a focused strategy to tackle alcohol abuse, which is what we have put forward. We must not confuse that issue, which is very important, with the other important issue of more flexible opening hours, which I believe will be of benefit to the country as a whole.

Frank Dobson: I start by feeling somewhat embarrassed because both my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport have been friends of mine for in excess of a quarter of a century. I hope that they will not take offence at some of the things that I have to say.
	I fundamentally believe in representative government. Nobody gets into this place, nobody becomes a junior Minister, a Cabinet Minister or even a Prime Minister unless they purport to represent their constituents. In pursuit of trying to represent the interests of my constituents, for more than six or seven years I have been urging Ministers to take action to tackle the disorder, the nuisance and the loutish behaviour that is making life intolerable for people living in many parts of my constituency. It is not just the people living there whose lives are made intolerable but people who want to go to the theatre or a restaurant in the area where all that drinking is taking place. That applies to my constituency, Covent Garden, our part of the west end and Camden Town. I have been raising this issue for a number of years, but we have never had a jot of support from Tory or Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I have been joined in my efforts by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and, if I am truthful, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and his predecessor, Peter Brooke, who is now a Member of the House of Lords. We have pressed for the law to be toughened up to protect law-abiding people who are going about their business and, above all, to ensure that local residents can maintain the quiet enjoyment of their homes, to which everyone is entitled. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North can claim the credit for some of the best parts of the Licensing Act 2003.
	When my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) was a Minister of State at the Home Office, I took a delegation of local people to see him. When we came out of his office, they said that he really understood what they were talking about, and listened to their points about disorder. Partly as a result of that meeting, the law was changed so that licensed premises that are a source of disorder can be closed by the police for 24 hours without resort to magistrates or anyone else. That was greatly to my right hon. Friend's credit, and it was a big step forward.
	About four years ago, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I met the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). We made many more points, and I remember confessing that I had not pressed my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn agreed that 24-hour closures could be extended beyond premises causing disorder to premises causing serious nuisance. That provision has since become law. He agreed that councils should have a licensing plan so that if they received applications for a new premises they could say, "I'm sorry, this street has enough booze outlets already". That, too, is an important provision in the Licensing Act. He also agreed that all the costs of dealing with licensing, when transferred to local authorities, would have to be met in full from the fees charged to the licensing applicants. When he agreed to those three concessions, one or two officials, while not exactly grinding their teeth, were none too jolly about it. Nevertheless, it was the right thing to do.
	When my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) became Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, responsibility for the booze laws was transferred to her Department. I mentioned the three undertakings that we had been given, but she told me that her officials could not find any record of them. Fortunately, I had issued a press release, which was cleared by right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and when I passed a copy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, she accepted those undertakings, all three of which were included in the Licensing Act. There were further meetings with Ministers, and other issues were raised in debate. One of the problems was that change had become an article of faith for Ministers, and there was an unrelenting commitment to 24-hour opening which, it was believed, would end British binge drinking—everybody would be knocking back the odd Campari in delicate circumstances à la Tuscany. I never believed that that would be the case, and we could have avoided many of the problems that have confronted the Government in the past few weeks and months if Ministers had listened more carefully to representations made by MPs on behalf of their constituents, to organisations such as Alcohol Concern, to academics who had studied the topic, and to the police. In fairness to Ministers, some of the police criticisms of the Government proposals came a bit late in the day. I exhorted the police to object when the Licensing Bill was going through Parliament, but they would not do so, so they only have themselves to blame.
	I remain concerned about the extension of opening hours. To give a simple example, at one end of a street is the Dog and Duck, which still closes at 11 o'clock. In the middle of the street is a pub called the Pig and Whistle, which receives permission to close at 12 o'clock. A fancy wine bar at the other end of the street closes at 1 o'clock. Instead of being woken up and disturbed by people turning out at 11 o'clock from all three establishments, the residents are woken up at 11, 12 and 1 o'clock, with intermediate problems caused by shuffling and shouting as people move from the pub closing at 11 o'clock to the one closing at 12 o'clock and then to the wine bar closing at 1 o'clock.

Frank Dobson: I do not have time, I am afraid.
	We must remember that we are not dealing with the odd individual who runs the Rovers Return or the Queen Vic. We are usually dealing with large, well-funded, nationwide chains and, in some cases, multinationals with lots of money that are likely to challenge court decisions, thus increasing councils' costs. We have been promised, however, that the fees charged will meet costs. I have made representations to Ministers, as have the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. The fee levels have been revised and improved, but they will still leave Camden council with a £2 million deficit over the next three or four years, so it is clear that the fees will not meet costs, which is quite unacceptable. The Government should make a clear commitment so that if they have got it wrong, Camden council, Westminster city council and other councils that operate at a loss can recoup their losses. I choose my words carefully in saying that it would add injury to insult if people had to pay for the licensing system for all those sources of nuisance.
	There is one last point that I shall make. Several times we made representations to Ministers, drawing attention to the fact that many licences contain conditions and also undertakings, which are not quite as powerful as the conditions. We pressed Ministers to require someone applying for a new licence to disclose to the new organisation—the council—the undertakings, as well as the conditions, because many of those undertakings protected local people. Ministers rejected that. If there are to be the revisions in the law that have been proposed recently, I hope they include the requirement that applicants disclose to the council not just the conditions, but the undertakings that were introduced to protect people. That will be a step forward.
	I hope that in future the Government will learn and that, instead of listening to ghastly organisations like the Portman Group, which is just a front for the booze industry, they will pay more attention to what elected Members of Parliament and local councillors are saying to protect their people.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Perhaps many more of us should have been listening rather earlier to his remarks. I hope he will consider me a repenting sinner. As we support the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the House should be aware that we are being consistent with the concerns that we expressed during the passage of the Licensing Act 2003, and with our decision to vote against both the Second and Third Readings of that Act.
	During the passage of the Act, we had some concerns about the Government's motivation for introducing the proposals. Reference has been made to that famous text message,
	"Cldnt give a XXXX 4 last ordrs? Vote Labour 4 xtra time."
	We wondered whether the motivation was to garner the youth vote, rather than to address the real problem of binge drinking that afflicts the nation. There are now real concerns on the part of the public and many hon. Members about various provisions of the Licensing Act. There is clearly not a great deal of public support for the provisions. A recent BBC poll for the "Breakfast" programme showed that 67 per cent. of people thought the legislation would increase the trouble on our streets and 62 per cent. thought the Act likely to make Britain a worse place in which to live.
	If the right controls and the right support mechanisms are put in place, flexibility in our licensing laws could help address the problems of binge drinking. Our concerns are that we do not have the right support measures and controls in place. For example, as I shall amplify, we do not believe that the powers of local authorities are adequate. We do not believe that support mechanisms—for example, the availability of public transport—are in place, and we continue to be worried about the fee structure so recently announced. However, we acknowledge that if we could develop the continental café culture, it could have some benefits.
	We welcomed from the beginning the increased powers that the Act gives to police and others to close down institutions—pubs, clubs and others—which experience significant problems, but as others have pointed out, we do not seem to be using even existing legislation to combat such problems. Examples have been given of provisions that are not being fully utilised, and a couple of other examples serve to illustrate the point. Only 12 landlords on average each year since 1997 have been prosecuted for allowing drunken or riotous behaviour on their premises. In the same period only 11 people in total have been prosecuted for buying drinks for friends who were incapable as a result of binge drinking. We welcome some of the increased powers, but we hope that the existing powers will be more effectively used.

Don Foster: The answer is yes. I do not think that I could explain the position more clearly. I have already set it out to the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). I am clear about that policy, but I have no reason to accept any suggestion from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that it would lead to an increase in binge drinking if we get the correct measures in place. Our concern is that the legislation does not provide us with the complete panoply of measures that we believe are necessary.
	We were sold a false prospectus by the Government during the passage of the legislation in terms, for instance, of whether the police supported it. We now know that very many police are deeply concerned. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, made that clear when he recently said:
	"The move towards 24-hour drinking needs to be slowed down. The fact that large groups of people will be coming out at 3am or 4am will mean that we have to man the streets to ensure they behave."
	We now know that even some of the information that was to be included in the alcohol harm reduction strategy and that would have been helpful to subsequent consideration of the issues was removed. According to the Daily Mail, that includes this initial warning:
	"Relaxing availability increases general harm whether through more outlets (Finland), denser outlets (California), or longer hours (Western Australia)."
	The consensus has certainly moved away from support for the measure. We have also heard that there were deep concerns even in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister has already referred to binge drinking as the British disease, and as we have heard, the former Home Secretary described the proposals as a leap in the dark.
	If we were given a dodgy dossier, however, the real issue is whether we are being given a sensible set of proposals that will really work. We are being told that local authorities will have significant powers to deal with the issues, but the more we study the Bill, the more we see its deep flaws. For example, at the very last minute, the Government accepted Liberal Democrat proposals that there should be some measures in place to address the issue of cumulative impact. The idea of special saturation policies was referred to. It does not appear in the Bill, but it is included in the guidance. Nevertheless, that opportunity is a rather thin one. For example, the very same guidance says:
	"nothing in this Guidance should be taken as indicating that any requirement of licensing law or any other law may be overridden".
	It does not give particularly special powers.
	When local authorities such as mine, Bath and North East Somerset, considered whether to introduce a special saturation policy, they realised that there were two problems. First, in the area immediately outside the saturation policy areas a green light would be given to all sorts of developments that might be unwelcome to local residents. Secondly, and more importantly, the authorities recognised that there was a real possibility of legal challenge. Indeed, Andrew McNeill, director of the Institute of Alcohol Studies, recently said:
	"I think it's going to be a legal minefield".
	Local authorities are not very keen to pursue matters with the power of the big breweries that might challenge them and the legal costs that are likely to follow.
	There are also concerns about the guidance relating to temporary event licences, as it will make it very difficult for local people to do anything about raves in their area. As the Secretary of State will know, only the police are allowed to object, and they have only 48 hours in which to do so. A rave organiser can simply put a letter through a rural police station letterbox on a Friday, and there will be no time whatever for action to be taken.

Don Foster: I was about to come to that point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—perhaps he will have an opportunity to develop his argument later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—will be well aware that, because of the problems that he mentions, the magistrates courts may become clogged up with all sorts of applications and we may have difficulty in implementing the measures anyway. I was going to make that point in a minute, but I am grateful to him for giving me the chance to do so now.
	The local flexibility that the Government talk about is very one-sided. The Government say that, on licensing, they strongly recommend
	"that statements of policy recognise that longer licensing hours"
	are
	"necessary to reduce the friction of late fast food outlets, taxi ranks and other sources of transport which lead to disorder and disturbance".
	Earlier, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked the Secretary of State whether it would be possible for a local authority to say no to any increases. The problem is that local authorities are required to have a licensing policy saying that they recognise that increasing licensing hours is a good idea. That makes it very difficult for them to follow the line that he might want to suggest. To add insult to injury, the guidance on the special saturation policy areas that local authorities might wish to introduce states specifically that no rule can be introduced in those areas saying that all the pubs must close at the same time. The guidance forbids local authorities from doing that. When he asked the Secretary of State about that issue, she should have said that such an approach was not possible.
	There are also concerns about the role of local councillors. How can it be right for a local councillor who represents a particular area of a town or city where there is a serious problem to be told that he or she cannot serve on the licensing committee considering licences in that area? Frankly, that is complete madness.
	The fees themselves are another problem. The Secretary of State has introduced a new set of fees. Many people will welcome them, but it is worth pointing out that the fees on which she consulted extensively and those that were introduced are significantly different. The new fees have come as a huge shock to the pubs and breweries, and various other related organisations. I am not arguing about whether they are right or wrong, but the publication of the fees within days of the first named day, 7 February, makes it hugely difficult for those involved to decide what action to take. At the same time, many bodies—not least small sports clubs—are deeply worried that the fee levels are far too high. All those arrangements have been introduced at very short notice.

Jim Knight: I am happy with the idea that the vast majority of our electors are responsible drinkers, including the vast majority of young people. I do not want to label young people as irresponsible. The irresponsible minority who cannot handle their drink and who cause alcohol-related violence must be dealt with, and the 2003 Act gives the police and local councils the powers to do that.
	I was a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised the 2003 Act, which is based on sound logic. Alcohol-fuelled violence is a problem on our streets and we need to liberalise the laws for the many, while clamping down on the few who abuse them. We are not discussing 24-hour drinking but flexible drinking. The British Beer and Pub Association conducted an extensive survey of its members and did not find anyone who wants to open for 24 hours. It is unfortunate that some people are getting on the bandwagon and labelling the policy as 24-hour drinking to score points with their friends at the Daily Mail. Who is the leader of the Opposition in this country? Is it the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or the editor of the Daily Mail? However, that is not the subject of this afternoon's debate.
	My view has been informed by accompanying the police in Weymouth late on a Friday night and through into Saturday morning to observe the behaviour of some of the irresponsible members of the community, who mix with the many responsible people who enjoy their leisure time in Weymouth town centre. I observed the activity in Weymouth town centre on the extensive CCTV system, which is funded by this Government, and on the streets with police officers.
	In Weymouth, there are pinch points between 11 pm and 11.30 pm, when the pubs chuck out, after 2 am, when the nightclubs chuck out, and in Westham road, where late-night refreshment establishments are concentrated, where people get kebabs, pizzas and chips and where the concentration of people towards the end of the evening and early in the morning causes a lot of disturbance and inevitably leads to fights, which can occur over taxis. I have spoken to the police, met local licensing officers and discussed the matter with taxi drivers in my constituency and they all agree that the most important way in which to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence is to remove the pinch points. That is why a flexible approach is the right one in dealing with alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.
	The police want the resources to deal with the problem properly. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of the fees structure, particularly the multiplier. That means that town centre licensed premises will have to pay considerably more than those with lower rateable values, so the full cost of inspection and enforcement can be recouped from those who make profits from selling alcohol and the community no will no longer have to pay through its council tax.
	The Act introduces a complete policy that tackles late night refreshment as well as licensing. That is welcome. Licensing officers and police in Swanage in my constituency have told me that one or two establishments selling kebabs and the like, where people congregate after the pubs have shut, are the main cause of civil disorder and public nuisance.
	The Act contains many powers that balance the liberalisation that I have advocated in respect of reducing the pinch points. They include the power of the police to close a premises down for 24 hours where they see disorder, the inclusion of late night refreshments and the ability to introduce a special policy, although I have some concerns about that along the lines articulated by the hon. Member for Bath. I welcome the introduction of personal licences, whereby a licence is required not only for the premises but for the person who is responsible in that operation. That licence equates to their personal livelihood, which they put at risk if they flout the law. That is a powerful sanction.
	At the heart of the approach taken in the Act is the principle of local accountability. People now have the power to object to their elected representatives, and if their elected representatives choose not to listen, they have the power to vote them out of office at the next election.

Jim Knight: I have given way twice and used up all my available time, although of course I would love to listen once again to the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman, having heard so many of his wise words on all sorts of bizarre things in Standing Committee.
	The Act also gives the police enhanced powers to object and introduces increased fines for certain people when drunk and for those who serve children under the age of 18.
	The aims of the new policy, which are stated at the beginning of the Act and in every licensing policy that every council will introduce, are to reduce public nuisance and disorder and to reduce harm to children. Every council has a responsibility to implement a policy that fulfils those aims, with which I am sure that every Member in the House agrees.
	The views of the police were clearly expressed clearly when we debated the legislation, but they seem, like many others, to have come under the influence of our friends at the Daily Mail. At the time of the White Paper, the Association of Chief Police Officers said:
	"ACPO has been consistent in its support of the removal of rigid permitted hours and the introduction of more flexible opening hours because of the strong link to crime and disorder."
	Chris Fox, speaking on Radio 5 Live on 25 October, said:
	"Well, let's get it straight, we're not against twenty four hour licensing, that's not the issue at all. What we're saying at the moment is that if we continue to run licences for twenty four hours in the way that we're running them currently we're going to have more street disorder, more drunkenness, more bad behaviour over a longer period."
	Voices in the police are clearly saying that the status quo is not working. We all know that that is the case and that we have to take action now, and that is why a delay in the implementation of the Act would be a mistake. I do not understand why Opposition Members are arguing for a such delay, which would deny to the police and local authorities new powers to act against the problems that we are experiencing in our town centres.
	In my constituency, I am working on a campaign, which I have discussed with Feargal Sharkey and others on the Live Music Forum, to encourage licensed premises to promote more live music now that they will no longer have to pay extra to do so. That might be popular not only with our younger voters but with voters of all ages, as I saw on Sunday afternoon when I attended, as did more than 600 others, a fundraising concert in Weymouth for victims of the tsunami disaster, where we listened to the likes of Billy Bragg. About £20,000 was raised by the many music lovers in my constituency, who want the Act to be implemented as soon as possible so that we can encourage more venues to promote live music.
	I urge hon. Members—and even right hon. Members, although I do not know if they will all listen—to support the Government amendment and wholeheartedly reject the opportunistic, bandwagoning approach of the Conservatives.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). He did not go out of his way to cultivate the support of the readers and editor of the Daily Mail, which might have been unwise given his small majority.
	I do not normally contribute to debates on licensing and feel a little like a stranger who has wandered into a bar where a few regulars are exchanging familiar arguments and anecdotes. Nevertheless, I want briefly to make two points. The first echoes what the hon. Member for South Dorset said about his experiences while out with the police. I spent 30 days on the police service parliamentary scheme. Several of those days and nights were spent in Southampton inspecting exactly the problem that we have been discussing. That is when I first came across the phrase, "the night-time economy." To begin with, I was suspicious of what I regarded as a new Labour phrase. However, it is true that Southampton has a night-time economy that complements its day-time economy and which will probably, with the passage of time, become more important as people have more money and leisure.
	That economy relates not only to pubs and clubs, but to food outlets and minicabs and, going back a stage, to clothes, shoes and fashion accessories. There is an industry there of which we should be cognisant, and as a Conservative who is responsive to market forces, my overall instincts are not to stand in the way of such an expression of consumer power. It is important that those of us in the House of Commons, which is slightly detached from young voters, should not say anything that implies that we do not understand how young people like to use their leisure. They like to pub and club, at times of the day and night when most of us are asleep, and the vast majority do so entirely inoffensively. Indeed, when I went round the pubs and clubs in Southampton, the vast majority of people, including several off-duty policemen and women, were enjoying themselves and acting entirely responsibly.
	I was struck by the all-pervasiveness of CCTV, not only at fixed points run by the local authority but as mobile cameras operated by the police. Young people should realise that, if they commit an offence in a city centre, it is almost certainly recorded on CCTV somewhere and will be used in evidence. On one occasion, I saw a young man being chased by potential assailants just outside the city centre. He headed for a spot that he knew was covered by CCTV, and the moment he got there his assailants stopped chasing him. Although CCTV may be criticised on libertarian or displacement grounds, I am all in favour of it as regards bringing law and order to the city centre. I was worried not so much by the alcohol as by the noise, which struck me as far more likely to injure people's health than alcohol. Several of the young people were not drinking alcohol at all, but soft drinks.
	Of course there are problems, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) rightly said. There are some very aggressive people, and I was interested to see how well informed many of them are as to exactly how far they can go with the police without getting arrested. They know that they can abuse the police without getting arrested because they have to be cautioned first. Once they are arrested, it is clear that everything that people say about police bureaucracy and filling forms is true. When we took one inebriated young man to the custody suite, the policeman had to fill in a form before he could be taken in. One of the questions was: "What is your religion?" If one asks a man inflamed with alcohol what his religion is, one is likely to spark a theological discussion in which everybody else in the custody suite feels free to join. I am sure that one could consider more critically the number of questions on the form that people have to answer before they are allowed to go through. In one case, a man, once arrested, had to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. That meant that the policemen who arrested him had to spend the whole of the rest of his beat in the cell sitting next to him. He was therefore off duty.
	Many policemen who should be policing the city centres do not do so because they are back at the police station, filling in forms and getting tied up with bureaucracy. There is enormous scope to streamline that. If people are charged, the defence solicitors are up to every trick in the book. Even though they know that their client is guilty, they will advise him to plead not guilty in case the witnesses or the police do not turn up. If they do, the plea is switched to guilty in the hope of a lenient sentence. Much can therefore be done in the existing framework to improve the effectiveness of policing.
	My second point is based on what happens in Andover. The brewing industry appears to focus on the city centres. In my part of Hampshire, it drives up the rents of the village pubs, which are closing, and opens fresh outlets in the city and town centres. I ask it to consider what it is doing. Viable village pubs become unviable if the rents are jacked up in the rent review. We have lost the Hare and Hounds outside Andover, and other pubs are threatened.
	Yesterday, I spoke to the landlord of the Southampton Arms in Andover, where we have pubwatch, which I am sure that other hon. Members have in their constituencies. There are some 26 individuals on the Andover pubwatch scheme. I found it interesting that the police implement it in Andover. The police rather than the landlord impart the good news to the individual that he is banned from every pub in Andover. That obviously removes a point of friction between the customer and the landlord.
	The application forms for the new regime that starts on 7 February are not available at the local authority in Andover. The people to whom I spoke yesterday believe that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for ensuring that the forms are available. It is unlikely that any pubs in Andover will open for 24 hours but the position may be different in other constituencies.
	Some people are reluctant to go to the town centre, especially at weekends. To deal with that, the police are piloting a new strategy for eight weeks. It has two key personalities. The first is PC Ken Crosby, who is based on a bicycle. That enables him to access the many alleyways and pedestrianised areas of the town. He has CCTV on his helmet and his job is to identify potential trouble makers—groups of young people who could cause difficulty. He is backed up by a 4x4, which has CCTV front and rear. It also has three directional microphones that pick up sounds 100 yd away and is backed up by a community patrol vehicle.
	Another key personality is Amara, a black Labrador, who sniffs out a wide range of drugs. She can smell crack cocaine at 40 ft and she examines people who stand in line for the clubs. To keep her on her toes, there are two stooges with 10 g of cocaine somewhere in Andover. They ensure that she is alert.
	The new scheme covers the off-licences as well as licensed premises. As we have heard, off-licences are often the problem. It is supported by the local authority licensing officer, the community wardens and the fire service. It focuses roughly on 2 am when there is a mass exodus and concentrates on the taxi ranks and fast food outlets.
	The initial evidence from the pilot scheme is encouraging. Proactive arrests early in the evening send a clear signal to the rest of the community. There is some evidence that the licensees are acting more responsibly and that revellers are more aware of what is going on.
	Although the House needs to tackle big strategic issues such as whether it is the right time to change the regime and the impact on consumption of longer or more flexible licensing hours, whatever the regime, much could and should be done now. My experience of Andover shows that genuine progress can be made through the police and local authorities working together and sending out a strong signal to minimise the irresponsible minority who threaten the pleasures of the vast law-abiding majority.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who clearly had a couple of informative nights out in Southampton and Andover. I learned a great deal from listening to his account of good practice in his area.
	I support the Government. My Whip would probably say, "About time, too." I support them on this occasion for several reasons. First, although I share views with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on a range of issues, such as gambling and broadcasting, I was surprised that he committed himself to drinking in pubs by 16-year-olds. Whatever the differences between the parties, I believed that there was a fair consensus that the law on under-age drinking had not been properly enforced, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said at the beginning of the debate.
	It was announced last week that, for the first time, it may become an offence for someone who is under 18 to try to purchase alcohol at a bar. Many people in the industry and in government have put much effort into the pass scheme, which will permit the use of a commonly recognised proof-of-age card throughout the country. That will be popular with many 18-year-olds who experience social embarrassment if they have to prove their age. As a friendly gesture towards the hon. Member for Bath, I ask him to reflect on his view because I have seen what some of my Whips and perhaps less scrupulous friends have done with Liberal promises in the past. I fear that the hon. Gentleman has given a hostage to fortune on 16-year-olds drinking.
	I want to put the subject of the debate in context. At the weekend, I looked at a picture the like of which we have all become familiar with in recent weeks on television and in newspapers. It depicts several young men fighting in the background, an older man falling over with a drink still in his hand and some young women who are clearly inebriated. It was an engraving by Hogarth in 1761 entitled "Gin Lane". I do not say that to diminish the current problem because we clearly have a problem with binge drinking, which has been graphically described, but to illustrate the fact that the problem has occupied the House many times over the years.
	I contend that we have had a century-long experiment in fixed opening hours and closing times for pubs, ever since Lloyd George proclaimed when he introduced the liquor licensing laws that we were fighting three enemies: the Hun, the Austrians and the drink and that the greatest was the drink. Since then, our licensing laws have been framed in that context. I believe that they encourage binge drinking. The various early-day motions that support the Government were not generally inspired by big pub companies or civil servants with links to such companies. I shall not embarrass hon. Members by reading out the names of some who signed the early-day motions in the previous Session and the previous Parliament.
	The early-day motions were largely inspired by CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale. It is unfair to characterise its members as middle-aged men with beards. Its current president is a woman and it represents beer drinkers of all ages. However, it does not represent the cutting-edge youth drinking market yet it supports more flexible opening hours. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the phrase "the night-time economy." He is probably right that it is a bit of a new Labour phrase but the words have tripped off my lips occasionally.
	The problem with the night-time economy is, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that it is often the province of the young. The only places that can stay open after 11 pm are those with entertainment licences. A bar or a club can stay open after 11 pm only if it makes noise. An ordinary pub cannot stay open except in special circumstances. That is nonsense and distorts the evening economy. It stops people who come out of cinemas and theatres going for that last drink.
	Some chief constables have latterly said that they are against the new measures and my chief constable in North Yorkshire has made such signals. However, when I asked her local police whether that means that they will clamp down on all the lock-ins in villages and suburban areas about which they know, they say that they will not because they do not cause problems. The situation should be regularised because the law should not be flouted in that way. If a well-managed pub in a village or suburb is not causing a nuisance to anyone, why should it not stay open later if that meets a demand? Such regularisation would have a civilising effect, as it has in Scotland and in the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is perhaps not the most socially liberal part of Europe, but it reformed its licensing hours two or three years ago in much the same way as we are doing. That resulted in a decrease in violent crime in the capital, Douglas, which had been having problems until then.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I am not intervening on him because of his reference to another offshore island. Will he go back for a moment to his recollections of the views expressed by CAMRA during the passage of the Licensing Bill, and compare them with those of the Association of Chief Police Officers? Hon. Members across the House know that the problem is not that we did not want reform, but that we wanted reform that was well thought through and would achieve the objectives that the Government said that it would. In Committee, we were told that licensing authorities could not reject licences unless to do so was in line with the licensing objectives in the Bill. Those objectives, narrow as they were on Second Reading, were even narrower when the Bill came out of Committee because Labour Members, and the Minister in particular, rejected our amendments to widen them.

Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who suggested that some of us in the Chamber are mature. I suppose that many of us are approaching maturity, but sadly from the wrong direction. He took us on a tour of Hogarth's London and the gin joints, and mentioned the great thundering voice of David Lloyd George, who may be starting to rotate at the thought that his once great party now advocates the extension of drinks to 16-year-olds.
	I want to make a relatively narrow point—putting aside the rights and wrongs of 24-hour drinking—on implementation and the effect on local authorities, on which several Members have touched briefly. I was very much in favour of the transfer of powers from magistrates to local authorities. Councils have a responsibility for crime reduction partnerships, with specific responsibilities for tackling youth disorder. Licensing in many ways has some commonality with planning, and most importantly, councils are democratically accountable to the population. It was therefore a brave decision, as it was in the face of opposition from many in the drinks industry.
	I cannot understand, however, what the point was of giving all those powers if they were to be made worthless once the guidance was produced. Under the regulations, unless an objection is made to a licence application, it will automatically be approved in full without amendment. The point that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made about raves is a good one. Local ward councillors are considered to be biased in favour of local residents and will be prevented from voting on late licences within their ward. They can object only if they live in the vicinity, in which case they must declare a prejudicial interest, which prevents them from attending any licensing application hearing. Therefore, it is somehow bad for democratically elected people to be biased in favour of their populations.
	I confess that I am biased in favour of the electors of Brentwood and Ongar. I doubt whether many Members of Parliament are not biased in favour of their electorate. That does not blind me to individual justice or the merits of an individual case. A balance must be struck—it happens in decisions made in this Chamber and in council chambers across the country—between individual rights and democratic accountability. The guidelines remove the one person who probably knows the local ward better than anyone, and to whom local residents look for guidance and leadership. That person is not only removed from voting, but cannot give evidence at any hearing. The representative nature of democracy, to which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred, is wholly pushed to one side because of the new guidelines.
	Councils are being advised that under the Human Rights Act 1998 they should not allow local ward councillors to sit and consider applications for their own wards, because of bias against pubs and clubs. That prejudice will lead to some strange circumstances. For example, Councillor Smith lives in Applegate ward, but two miles from the public house subject to the application. Councillor Black lives in the adjoining Mayflower ward, but one mile from the pub. Councillor Black can vote, but Councillor Smith cannot. There is no logic to that. Only in the never-never land of the Human Rights Act or the guidance would electoral divisions be regarded as natural catchment areas for licensed premises.
	Parish councils will not be recognised as objectors, but residents' associations are. The guidance specifically defines interested parties as
	"a person living in the vicinity of the premises in question; a body representing persons living in that vicinity, for example a residents' association; a person involved in business in the vicinity of the premises in question; and a body representing persons involved in such businesses, for example, a trade association."
	It is unlikely—I am not aware of any—that many residents' associations are coterminous with parish councils. Again, that marginalises councillors. Councillors will not be able to object to the saturation of pubs and clubs if existing premises apply to extend their licensing hours. They will not even be able to introduce a staggering of opening hours. The guidance says:
	"Above all, licensing authorities should not fix predetermined closing times for particular areas."
	It continues:
	"Licensing authorities should not seek to engineer 'staggered closing times' by setting quotas for particular closing times".
	That was supposed to be the great advantage of the new licensing laws.
	My belief is that local councils should be free to decide that there are already enough bars and pubs in a neighbourhood. Clusters of pubs and bars can create disorder and disorder hotspots. Local councils should be able to take into account the proximity of existing licensed premises when considering a new application. Such decisions would not be taken in isolation—there are examples from other parts of the world. In New York, for example, a bar would not be licensed were it within 500 yd of another bar. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. He represents a council that is a shining example of deciding on a set of policies that balance the rights of consumers and publicans and ensure that visiting those parts of Westminster is an enjoyable experience. All that hard work counts for nothing because of these new regulations.

Charles Hendry: I certainly believe that the overwhelming majority behave responsibly, and would behave responsibly; but if the hon. Gentleman consults the charities working in the sector, the medical profession and the police, he will learn that they have serious misgivings about the extension that he proposes.
	Today, however, we are obviously focusing on the Government's position. I am afraid that I thought the Home Secretary's speech was characterised primarily by a sense of complacency, which did not seem to take account of the depth of the crisis that we already face. This issue does not just affect big cities; it has spread to small towns. My constituency contains four medium-sized towns containing between 10,000 and 20,000 people, and antisocial behaviour linked to alcohol and the crime that accompanies such behaviour are an increasingly regular problem in those communities. Even the smaller villages containing 3,000 or 4,000 people are experiencing alcohol-related problems, including crime, which were unknown just a few years ago.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, said that the cost of alcohol-related crime was £7 billion a year. That is an horrific and frightening figure. Perhaps we should set it against the amount that the Government will make from the change in the licensing hours. They will gain extra money from income tax and national insurance, extra money from VAT on the extra alcohol that is served, and extra money from corporation tax on the extra profits that are made. Yet they say that they should bear no responsibility for the associated costs of disruption and crime that will follow the change, which I consider very irresponsible.
	It goes further than that, however. The Government cannot claim to be the party to solve the current problems when they must bear responsibility for the growth of those problems in the first place. Reference has been made to their campaign at the time of the last election:
	"Cldnt give a XXXX for last orders? Vote Labour for xtra time."
	I am encouraged by the recognition on the part of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) that that was an ill-thought-through campaign. It was not targeted at the majority who will drink responsibly; it was deliberately designed to say to young people "Vote Labour. Get a Labour Government, and go out and get hammered at night." It was an irresponsible campaign, and the Government should take responsibility for it. They must take the blame for the fact that alcohol-related crime and binge drinking are at their worst-ever levels. They worked to encourage that culture—they thought it would be cool to be the champions of late night drinking—and now they face the consequences as the majority who do not want that kind of society rise up in anger.
	The Government have also shown shocking naiveté. The Home Secretary must be the only person who believes that longer opening hours will not lead to more drunkenness. We must ask ourselves why the publicans would want the longer hours. Do we honestly believe that if they thought the same people would be drinking the same amount of alcohol, but over a longer period, they would be keen to stay open for longer? Their staffing costs would rise, their takings would stay the same and their profits would go down. The publicans only want to stay open because they know that people will drink more. We must be in no doubt that, as a result of these changes, some people will become more drunk, and the consequences will be more serious. The Home Secretary also seems to make no distinction between all-day drinking and all-night drinking. The culture that goes with night-time drinking is very different.
	It is clear that the Government simply do not recognise the misery that drunken behaviour causes. It is not just the violence; it is the noise, the rowdiness, the rudeness and the threatening behaviour that so often accompany drunkenness. Nor do the Government take account of the consequences. They take no account of those who must clear up the broken glass, those who must dodge the sick left on the pavement the following day, and those who must put up with the smell of urine that is left behind. Those are things that have blighted communities and made living in too many of our town centres a misery for people—people on whom the Government have turned their back. People want a Government who will deal with the root causes, and not just bandage the problems that they have allowed, even encouraged, to get worse.

Mark Field: Let us for once be wise before the event. The Government cannot claim that they have not been warned by Members on all sides of the House—let alone by the police, the medical profession and smaller, independent, family-run licensed businesses—about the consequences of the Licensing Act 2003. I hope that we can put its implementation on hold until we have a sensible strategy on antisocial behaviour and binge drinking. To do anything else would be na-ve to the point of negligence. Simply Europeanising our drinking habits and licensing laws will not instil in our young people Mediterranean attitudes to alcohol consumption.
	I want to explain what lies at the heart of my objections to this legislation, and I should first point out that I do not support the idea of a nanny state. Reference has been made the problems that exist in London's west end. Many bars in Soho and Covent Garden already have staggered licensing hours; indeed, the same is true of much of central London. The myth has arisen that this country has a pre-first world war licensing regime. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) referred to the brooding presence of Lloyd George in debates on licensing matters, but licensing hours, particularly in our larger towns and cities, have already developed well beyond those days. My own constituency contains a number of bars and pubs that remain open well beyond 11 o'clock; indeed, some remain open until as late as 3 o'clock in the morning. I am afraid that flexible licensing has not made a great deal of difference to much of the behaviour on our streets.
	I must confess that I am instinctively a libertarian: I do not like imposing lots of rules and regulations. I can understand part of the Government's thinking, and it is an important part. They want to take a much more flexible attitude, and I only wish that we could rely on many of our citizens behaving responsibly. I want to discuss my own constituency not because it is entirely unusual—that said, Westminster has more alcohol licences than any other borough in the country—but because it underlines the point that without that sense of responsibility, we cannot ensure that we will create the sort of world in which we would like to live.
	In Soho and Covent Garden—a part of London that I share with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the great majority of the residential population are not necessarily there out of choice. I have always believed that those who buy a property next door to a football ground or a pub have to expect a certain amount of disruption. In a previous life, I was a member of the planning committee of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which often debated such matters. It struck me then that to buy a property knowing that certain problems would arise because it was near a large entertainment venue, and then to complain about such disruption, was the height of selfishness. However, some 60 per cent. of the population of Soho and some 70 per cent. of the population of Covent Garden—many thousands of people—are living in some form of social housing. They have very little choice about where they live, and many of them constitute some of the most vulnerable in our society. They are trying to bring up their families in the face of appalling disorder.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) rightly referred to the debris that we see on our streets. Indeed, we see it day in, day out on the streets of Soho and Covent Garden. In addition to rubbish, urine and vomit, we sometimes come across used needles and the other detritus that is part and parcel of a "good night out". When the young people living in inner-city London discover such detritus outside their schools, churches and church halls—the places that constitute the very heart of our inner-city communities—that creates an extremely difficult situation.
	It is often forgotten that places such as Leicester square have a thriving residential population. Some 10,000 people live in Soho and Covent Garden, which combined constitute an area of some two and a half square miles. We need to encourage vibrant residential populations not just within London, however, but within all our cities. For the first time in two centuries, inner-city populations are rising in places such as Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. That is greatly to be welcomed, but we need the civilising force that a genuine sense of community would provide.
	I am not against the alcohol trade at all. In Standing Committee, many of the this Act's most vocal supporters came from the smaller, family-run outfits, who felt that they were being driven out of central London. One of the greatest pities is that the larger alcohol and entertainment businesses have little stake in our communities and therefore little sense of the needs of inner-city residential populations. As several hon. Members have pointed out, they are able to employ the most expensive lawyers to ensure that they maintain their licences.
	I am not against young people having a good time either. I suspect that I am the youngest hon. Member in the Chamber at the moment—although I am not as young as I should like to think, having already celebrated my 40th birthday. However, the selfish and loutish behaviour evident in our towns and cities is simply unacceptable. We should try to cultivate civility, good manners and consideration. In addition, the inner cities should be places where families can thrive, as well as places where people both old and young can enjoy the available resources. We need to ensure that a sense of community runs from cradle to grave.
	While we are in the business of exploding some myths, there are a few others that I would like to consign to oblivion. To put it charitably, the Prime Minister could be said to have been inexact in his recollection of events when he argued at last week's Prime Minister's Question Time that the Conservative party was jumping on a bandwagon, having previously supported this Act. That is not the case: we had a robust debate in Standing Committee, and we also opposed the legislation on Third Reading. We divided the Committee umpteen times, and our opposition to the Act has gained many third-party endorsements.
	The boorishness and vulgarity promoted by many members of the celebrity media shame our cities and towns, but we also face the unedifying spectacle of a Government in a wild panic as they try to close down what they see to be a public relations disaster. The hapless rearguard action being led by the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is rather pathetic. Since last weekend, we have heard much rhetoric about banning orders, on-the-spot fines and the "three strikes and you're out" response. That rhetoric is getting louder and brasher, but as ever with this Government, it is all about spin. The Government are more concerned about getting headlines than controlling the real problem that faces us.
	How in heaven's name can any of the new rules be enforced if we do not have the necessary police and transport infrastructure? We asked those questions two years ago, when the Bill was in Committee, and it is unfortunate that we are no further forward in ensuring that we have that infrastructure. It is all very well to have endless rules and regulations on the statute book, but they will have no value if we cannot enforce them through tough and effective policing.
	The astronomical proposed increase in flexible licence fees may help local authorities recoup some of the administrative costs that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been so reluctant to underwrite. However, what will be the cost in the longer term? Ministers must understand that the legislation will have a most serious effect on small, responsible, family-run bars, restaurants and pubs—the very establishments that we should be looking to encourage, as they would ensure the civility of our towns and cities to which I referred earlier.
	I fear that the agenda will be set instead by the all-powerful alcohol industry and its close cousins, the large-scale entertainment operators. They were the driving forces behind much of this legislation, and no doubt they will become handsome contributors to the Labour party's coffers.
	I could say a lot more, but I know that time is running out. I wanted to touch on the point so ably made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about the many undertakings that have been swept away. They worked well and provided an effective mechanism for allowing residents, local councillors and businesses to have a real say under the old procedure. I regret their loss.
	I shall end as I began: I am not a killjoy, and I do not support restrictive, nanny-state regulations. I wish that everyone could be responsible, civilised and courteous, but we must face the facts in respect of our society. What sort of cities should we aspire to have in 20 or 30 years? Do we want there to be no-go zones? Do we want there to be a commercial free for all in inner cities bereft of a residential population? Do we want Governments of whatever colour enforcing on a daily basis banning orders on drinking, on-the-spot fines for people roaming the streets late at night, and implementing the "three strikes and you're out" policy?
	The lesson of regeneration in the cities to which I referred earlier is that it is vital that our cities have vibrant and articulate residential populations. I spend a lot of time speaking to residents associations in the villages that make up central London. The people to whom I speak are passionately proud of their sense of community and want to develop it. I want our cities to be wonderful places for families, but any sensible observer would concede that this Act, as it stands, undermines their very fragile balance. I beseech the Government to think again, and to work to get the legislation right.

Desmond Swayne: I went to university in Scotland, some considerable time ago. When I first arrived, people who wanted to get a drink on a Sunday had to go to a hotel, as bona fide travellers. Since then, the word "traveller" has acquired an unwelcome connotation, but there has been little progress when it comes to licensing.
	The licensing Act 2003 is a dreadful measure. I am glad that I voted against it. It introduces licensing flexibilities, but at an enormous cost. I have already spoken in the House about the experience of my constituent, Mr. John Crosthwaite-Eyre. He has been told that the licence for his Dunwood Manor golf club will rise from £16 to £1,145. That will not secure a more flexible licence that extends opening times beyond what was previously available. The new licence will only allow the club to open as it has always done.
	That huge increase in cost is presumably a consequence of the shift from magistrate licensing to local authority licensing. I understand the rationale behind that, as it will lead to greater public accountability. However, we have already heard about the regulations that will remove any real accountability, as they will prevent councillors from representing the localities to which they are supposed to be accountable.
	Some months ago, my wife and I had the misfortune to have to go on a mission of mercy—we had to accompany a friend to casualty on a Saturday night. The local general practitioner had diagnosed an infection in our friend's joints, and had recommended that the lady concerned should be taken to hospital in Southampton. We arrived in casualty to be greeted by a scene that could have been painted by Hieronymous Bosch. I could not believe it—there was blood and vomit everywhere, and people were arguing and fighting. Some of the "clients"—if one can call them that—made it clear that what we witnessed was a typical Saturday night, and that impression was reinforced by the staff. Many people consider ending up in casualty on a Saturday night as part of what habitually happens. It is, to them, unremarkable that one might end a Saturday evening with a trip to casualty.
	By contrast, the Government have held out the prospect of a café culture, with a more Mediterranean approach to drinking habits. I can understand the attraction of that.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) gave us a good illustration of what happens in a pub as we approach closing time. However, I do not swallow the argument that the problem that a minority of our fellow citizens have with drink arises because of the confines of our existing drinking laws and that by getting rid of them we will be able to move to the sunny uplands of a café culture. I just do not believe that. The cart is being put before the horse. We have to analyse the real causes of our problematic drinking culture and then we will, perhaps, be able to liberalise our drinking laws in the hope that that will lead to more sensible drinking. But it is madness to do it the other way round and assume that the benefits that are enjoyed by certain Mediterranean countries will automatically flow to us simply by liberalising our licensing laws, when we already know that we have a severe problem.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised the irresponsibility of the text message that was sent to young voters just before the last general election. It bears repetition:
	"Cldnt give a XXXX 4 last ordrs? Vote Labour 4 xtra time".
	That is not a message for people seeking to enjoy a café culture. It has a wholly different connotation.
	There may be additional marginal benefits for people who wish to drink at any time in a 24-hour period. However, I cannot understand the desire to drink at 7 am, unless one is suffering from a dreadful toothache or something similar. The benefits and convenience will accrue to those people who wish to drink at 7 am, but enormous inconvenience will be caused to my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made the point about the residential population of places such as Covent Garden. My constituency is typified by small towns—for example, God's own town of Lymington—in which the High street contains not only commercial premises but people's houses. It is a residential area, but those who live there have to endure the problems that arise as drinkers approach pubs, at closing time and after closing time. I do not believe that those problems will be solved if closing times are staggered so that people are not thrown on to the street at the same time. The reality for my constituents will be that the agony will be prolonged. Frankly, that is not an experiment that I want to see take place. I would prefer the benefits to be established before it happens in Lymington.
	Labour Members—I exclude the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), because he has a long and honourable record on the issue—seemed to be over-sensitive when they intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). The tenor of their interventions was not that my right hon. Friend's argument was wrong. Indeed, the premise of their interventions was that they accepted entirely what he was saying. They merely complained that he had not said it sooner. They implied that it was the job of the Opposition to discover the falsehoods inherent in the Government's arguments and statistics. Well, those Labour Members were wrong in fact, because many of us have been making such points for some time—perhaps not as vocally as we should have done—and they also attempted to absolve themselves from any responsibility for holding the Government to account. It is not only the Opposition who are responsible for holding the Government to account: it is the entire House of Commons. Indeed, it is the entire Parliament. Part of our problem with the passage of legislation is the acceptance that scrutiny is down to the Opposition. If more Labour Members had taken the lead from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and given that their influence over the Government is likely to be much greater than ours, we might have made more progress than we have.

John Whittingdale: When the Home Secretary made his speech at the beginning of the debate, I think that he said that he agreed with the first quarter of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Almost every single person who has spoken in the debate would agree about the seriousness of the problems that we know face—binge drinking, alcohol-related violence, the implications for the health service and the damage to the quality of life of people living not just in our inner cities but in towns throughout the country. I represent a rural area, and the problems are as serious for my constituents as they are for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).
	The problems have always been at the centre of the debate surrounding the Licensing Act 2003. When the Bill received its Second Reading 22 months ago, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport began her speech by pointing out the cost to the nation of alcohol-related disease and the growing problem of alcohol-related violence. She then specifically defended the proposals in the Bill on the basis that:
	"Abolishing arbitrarily fixed closing times means that the incentive to drink as much before closing time at 11pm will go. Disorder and nuisance will be reduced as the concentration of people on the street at closing time will fall."
	She went on to claim:
	"The abolition of fixed closing times and its effect on binge drinking ties the Bill very closely to the national alcohol harm reduction strategy." ."—[Official Report, 24 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 57–8.]
	In the same debate, we pointed out that many people disputed this view and that, in particular, there was international evidence that did not support it. Indeed, a number of police officers and local authorities had also questioned it. However, what we did not know at that time was that this view was also disputed by many in the Government as well and that the assurances that the Government were acting in accordance with the views of the police and their own advisers on alcohol reduction were not correct.
	We now know that the draft alcohol harm reduction strategy circulated to the Cabinet in August 2003 stated:
	"Relaxing availability . . . increases general harm whether through more outlets (Finland), denser outlets (California) or longer hours (Western Australia)."
	However, when the interim strategy was published the following month, that sentence was removed because, in the words of the Secretary of State, it was misleading and based on a highly selective review of the available evidence. That seems to represent a strong attack on the competence of the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which drafted the document.
	The unit was not alone in the Government in expressing its concern. We now know that the Home Office's crime reduction director said a year ago:
	"The Licensing Act will make matters worse. Binge drinking is a particular problem".
	The then Home Secretary apparently said that plans to allow 24-hour drinking were a leap in the dark that risked worsening the situation of violent crime and yobbish behaviour.
	Too many of our towns and cities are already becoming no-go areas at night because of the activities of drunken yobs. Prior to the passage of the Licensing Bill, I spent a Friday night in the west end with licensing officers from Westminster city council. We visited several large clubs—I believe that they are now known as vertical drinking establishments—each of which was packed with more than 1,000 people who appeared to have the sole purpose of drinking as much as possible in the time available. I also spoke to residents of Soho that evening, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has referred to their experiences every weekend and the fact that their quality of life has been destroyed as a result. After entering the home of one resident to talk about the scale of the problem, I emerged to find that someone had vomited on his doorstep. He said, "Don't worry. It'll probably be the first of three or four occasions when that happens tonight." I have also spent a night with the police in Chelmsford in my constituency. Over the course of about six hours, almost every incident that we attended was related to excess drinking and the fights, vandalism and yobbish behaviour that result from that.
	According to the Government's figures, alcohol misuse is costing £20 billion a year. It accounts for half of all violent crime and up to 70 per cent. of admissions to accident and emergency departments. It accounts for about 17 million lost working days and 22,000 premature deaths. Of course, the Government are right to say that those figures reflect the present situation and thus cannot be blamed on the relaxation of drinking hours, which is yet to take effect, but they cannot ignore the list of experts who unanimously predict that extended opening hours will make the problem worse.
	Although the Association of Chief Police Officers' original response to the White Paper supported flexible opening hours, subject to caveats, even then it pointed out the danger that they could lead to
	"an unintended and much later uniform closing time . . . when fewer police resources are available and facilities such as transport are more limited".
	Since then, it has expressed greater concern by warning:
	"The result will be more people under the influence of alcohol or drunk and this will lead to more crime and disorder".
	The Chief Inspector of Constabulary said:
	"it may be pouring people out on the streets at different times but that's in an even worse state of inebriation".
	The Police Federation said:
	"Our officers' experience is that if even more alcohol becomes available through 24-hour opening there can be only one result: even more drunkenness".
	We now learn that the medical profession, too, is united in its opposition. The chairman of the Royal College of Physicians alcohol committee has said:
	"we are facing an epidemic of alcohol related harm and to extend the licensing hours flies in the face of common sense as well as the evidence from other countries".
	An A and E consultant at St Mary's hospital, Paddington, has said:
	"Ireland and Australia have seen a huge increase in alcohol consumption and attendances at A&E departments have also soared."
	The Irish Medical Organisation has said:
	"The Royal College is right to be concerned. The evidence from Ireland shows that if the pubs open all night then people drink all night".
	However, let us remember that the Prime Minister's strategy unit document pointed out overseas experience, but the Secretary of State removed that by suggesting that it was a highly selective review of the evidence.
	Yesterday, we debated the Gambling Bill on Report. The Government appeared for a long time to dismiss the concerns of those who warned against the dangers of gambling addiction that could result from the introduction of mega-casinos into the UK; yet in that same Bill the Government proposed to place draconian restrictions on family seaside arcades for which no evidence of harm has ever been produced. Today, in the Licensing Act, we face an almost identical situation: the Government are pushing ahead with the introduction of extended opening hours against a chorus of opposition from the police, doctors and experts in alcohol addition; yet, in the very same Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out, they are forcing local voluntary sports clubs to pay massively increased fees for a licence to run a bar at the end of a game. Last week, the chairman of the Central Council of Physical Recreation said:
	"In the Government's quest to appear tough on binge drinkers, it has penalised sport and recreation organisations that do so much good in the community . . . It is completely unacceptable to devastate the British sporting landscape just so the Government can appear tough on crime."
	It seems extraordinary that, with the same piece of legislation, the Government are going to drive out of business many sports clubs, which play a vital part in increasing the fitness of the nation and therefore improving the health of the nation, while ignoring all expert advice and going ahead with extended opening hours, which will lead to more drunkenness, more violent crime and more alcohol-induced illness and death.
	In the course of the debate, we have heard extremely good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is fully justified in claiming to have been consistent on the issue: he has indeed campaigned on it for many years and it is a pity that he was not listened to earlier. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made some sensible comments—I often find myself agreeing with him. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), he pointed out some of the difficulties that local authorities will have in taking advantage of the powers once the guidelines have tied their hands. However, like many of my colleagues, I found extraordinary the hon. Gentleman's confirmation of the Liberal Democrat policy of reducing from 18 to 16 the age at which people are able to purchase alcohol and drink in pubs. When we are facing a significant increase in under-age drinking and the problems to which it leads, to cut the age at which people are allowed to drink seems a curious solution.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made some interesting observations drawn from his experience of participating in the police parliamentary scheme, and he described methods being adopted in Southampton. It is true that a co-ordinated approach is required and many of the strategies being adopted by the police in places such as Southampton bear examination. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) rightly pointed out that the problem is not a new one: it goes back many years. He honestly admitted that the spin put on the policy by Millbank's sending out that famous text message contributed little to the arguments in favour of it.
	It was my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar who made some important observations about the difficulties that local authorities will have in implementing the legislation and using their powers to control binge drinking. He supported the transfer of responsibilities to local authorities. We had some reservations about that when it was proposed, but we accepted the case for transfer, albeit only if local authorities were able to use those powers properly. My hon. Friend pointed out one or two serious problems that have since been discovered in the published guidelines—in particular, the fact that a local ward councillor is considered to be biased and will therefore not be eligible to vote on the proposal to approve an application for an extended opening hours licence. As my hon. Friend said, the one person who knows the circumstances best of all in that ward is undoubtedly the ward councillor. Yet he is disqualified. Equally, parish councils are not able to make representations. The ability of local authorities to control excessive drinking will be severely constrained as a result. I hope that the Government will revisit this matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made the important point that when we came to consider what is now the Act, 18 months to two years ago, we did so without the Government telling us of the analysis that had been carried out within Government and of the advice that they were receiving outside Government. Given what we now know, we consider that the Government should pause. The degree of opposition from the police, the medical profession and other experts is so great that it would be foolish for the Government to press ahead without pausing and carrying out a thorough assessment.
	On the Gambling Bill, the Government agreed to retreat. They agreed to introduce a pilot scheme before allowing mega-casinos to come to this country. There is an identical case here. We have the evidence before us. I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will stop and think again.

Tessa Jowell: Along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary I, too, welcome the debate. It provides an opportunity to deal with what are literally shoals of red herrings swirling around the issue. If a fraction of what some newspapers and Opposition Members are saying were true, I would not be defending these policies and nor, I suspect, would many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	I start with where I think we have established a clear consensus, which is that in this country we have a severe problem with drink, drink-related crime and behaviour that is associated with people getting drunk. Throughout the country, alcohol-related disorder is rising. As many Members have described graphically, groups of yobs make some streets in some of our cities no-go areas at night. Too many of our young people have a drinking culture that encourages binge drinking—the purposeful drinking of too much too quickly so as to get drunk. Rightly, there is public concern about that and right hon. and hon. Members reflect that concern.
	It is important to recognise that the status quo is the problem, not the Licensing Act 2003, which, although it secured Royal Assent two years ago, is not yet in effect.
	I take seriously the claim of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), which was repeated by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), that somehow the evidence that underpins our strategy has been tampered with. I commend to the House the interim analytical report, the research evidence that provided the background for the alcohol harm reduction strategy, which gives an unvarnished account of the harm that alcohol does in all its various ways.
	There is the question of what fuels an increase in drinking. By and large, we drink less than some of our European counterparts. There is a debate among the experts, as rigorous examination of the various research will reveal. There is a debate about price, and the price of alcohol is falling in this country. The price of alcohol in supermarkets is much less than it is in a pub. It is possible for someone to get drunk for much less money if they buy alcohol from a supermarket or from some off-licences. There is a strong body of support for the belief that that is principally driving the increase in binge drinking and alcohol-related disorder.
	Other evidence about the impact of opening times was obviously considered. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out clearly the evidence from the legislation in Scotland and the Isle of Man. There is also evidence of the impact of reduced consumption following the liberalisation of the licensing laws by the previous Government in 1988.

Charles Hendry: In her heart, does the Secretary of State believe that, if the pubs are open longer, people will drink more, less or the same?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. There are two ways in which we intend to strengthen those procedures. First, it is an offence for a licensee to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk. By giving local authorities the resources for greater enforcement of the new powers, we intend to ensure that they will undertake inspections that will reveal the pubs and clubs where that is happening. We also intend to make that subject to a fixed penalty.
	No one is claiming—and I am certainly not—that the Licensing Act alone will heal all the problems of alcohol and alcohol-related crime. However, we will not achieve a solution for the problems that we face without that Act, which is part of a bigger jigsaw of pieces that must be put in place if we are to make progress. The 2003 Act directly complements the alcohol harm reduction strategy, which was published last March and aims to reduce significantly the harm that alcohol causes. By linking the impact of the Licensing Act to public health education and to the targeted powers heralded in the alcohol harm reduction strategy for tackling disorder, we can begin to change the behaviour of young people. The strategy includes the development of a code of practice that addresses irresponsible sales promotions. Many young people drink too much too quickly as a result of promotions that encourage them to drink all they can for £9.99. Those promotions are designed to do nothing but encourage drunkenness. We can make responsible conduct of premises, which involves not promoting drink in that irresponsible way, a licence condition. We can also work with the industry, the best and responsible parts of which want an end to such promotions.

Tessa Jowell: No, I am not giving way.
	The Act presumes that the vast majority of people should be treated like the adults that they are. It is wrong-headed for a Government to tell the entire population that they cannot be trusted to drink after 11 pm. Our role is to give adults the freedom they deserve, while giving the yobbish minority the rough and tough treatment that they deserve. Remember, the objectives of the Licensing Act are the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm. For the first time, democratic accountability will be at the heart of alcohol licensing. I can reassure the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that he has got it wrong. I am happy to write to him to set out clearly the position of local councillors.
	The Act does not just give new powers to local authorities. It empowers the community as a whole. It is astonishing that no previous Government thought to give local residents any say in how their local pub was run. We have done so. For the first time, local residents will have the opportunity to intervene not only when a new licence is being considered and any extension of hours is being proposed, but at any stage after it is granted. The Act also provides a new and expanded raft of powers to enable licensing authorities to respond to residents' concerns. They will be able to add new conditions to licences, restrict the opening hours, suspend licences for one day, a weekend or up to three months, require the removal of a designated premises supervisor, remove an entire licensable activity such as selling alcohol, or as a last resort, revoke a licence.
	The Act strengthens police powers in respect of licensing and is tougher on crime and disorder and under-age sales, all of which are contributory factors to town and city centre disorder that gives rise to such concern. The police have been consistent in wanting resources in support of new powers, but have recognised the potential benefits of flexible opening. Our message to the police is, "We are giving you the new powers and the resources. Now use them to promote the solutions to the problems that cause such concern."
	There is an opportunity now for every single Member of this House to act on behalf of their constituents, because every single licence, from 7 February, will be coming up for renewal. The police have the power to object to a simple renewal of any licence. Local residents, councillors, Members of Parliament and area child protection authorities all have the power to object to any variation of the existing licence. Democracy is there, and I urge every Member of the House to use it. I am happy to reiterate in relation to local authorities my previous undertaking that the fee levels to fund enforcement and running the new system will be kept under constant review.
	The answer to the problems that we have lies in local democracy, a more responsible drink industry and police with the power to take on the yobs. The problems have developed over years. This Government in this Licensing Act put out a series of practical solutions that will change our town and city centres for the better. I urge the House to vote for the Government amendment.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the passing of the Food Supplements Regulations (England) 2003; mandates the Government to use the UK Presidency to renegotiate the Food Supplements Directive with the European Union; and indicates a willingness to repeal the regulations if the renegotiation does not reach a satisfactory compromise to protect the interests of consumers and manufacturers in the United Kingdom.
	We move from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Government want us to drink alcohol at all hours but not to take vitamin tablets. The motion deals with an issue that affects millions of our constituents and gives Parliament an opportunity to send a firm message to the Government about our views and to make it clear that the House, not Ministers, is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in this country.
	Our debate is not a conventional Opposition day debate and the motion is cross party. Subject to catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will join me in supporting it. We aim to send the Government a message that the issue is beyond party politics, that hon. Members of all parties share our concerns and that it is time to do something about it.
	We know that our concerns are not confined to the Opposition or to Government Back Benchers. The Leader of the House, who is not in his place for the debate, sought to explain his party's poor performance in the European elections by citing concerns about the very subject of our debate. In an interview with The Observer just after the elections, he said that Labour would tackle over-regulation from Brussels,
	"which is just seen to be prying into nooks and crannies of life",
	and cited the decision to ban popular vitamins and herbal remedies such as echinacea. He said:
	"I think there is unnecessary interference in, for example, dietary supplements and food supplements and herbal remedies".
	I agree with him and so do the majority of hon. Members.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Is he aware, however, that in certain doses, vitamin A can be fatal, and that recent research on vitamin E suggested that it could cause cancer at high dosage levels? Does he agree that we need to investigate some of these products to ascertain whether they are safe?

Julian Brazier: Is not there a certain historical echo with the time when the noble Lord Rooker, who then had responsibility for this matter, banned vitamin B6 as a result of some committee of wiseacres suggesting that he should? The outcry from millions of people, foreshadowed by several Members on both sides of the House, made the Government finally reverse that ban, as that vitamin is essential to many people's health.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. He highlights that good information for consumers is highly desirable, but draconian decisions by Government are definitely not.
	We will therefore end up with a position in this country whereby it will be legal for a teenager to go out and buy a packet of cigarettes, which cause cancer, and yet it will be illegal for an adult to go out and buy vitamin tablets. That is completely and utterly absurd. The Government claim that all that is being done in the name of consumer safety. Again, I invite the Minister to stand up in the Chamber today and name any one of those 277 nutrient sources that is dangerous and should not be on the market.

Angela Browning: Given the Minister's response to my hon. Friend's invitation to her to stand up and demonstrate her knowledge on the subject, is he as alarmed as I am that she indicates that she does not know, as she asks the Opposition to provide such information, but she is quite prepared to trust the Brussels machine with its lack of knowledge?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's position is completely untenable on this matter, but they continue to pursue it to the fury of consumers around this country.

William Cash: Do not even the exchanges that have taken place so far make it clear that there is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House? We are prepared to make a commitment. Not only would we want to renegotiate the directive; if those in Europe did not listen to us or refused to take account of our views, we would legislate on our own account in line with our ability to enact any legislation that is expressly and unambiguously inconsistent with European legislation if we so wish, as an act of political will and to underline the sovereignty of this House.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The text of the motion is clear and unambiguous. It seeks renegotiation, because renegotiation is the right option. We do not want confrontation with our European partners; we simply want to go back and say "This is not right for us." My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Opposition spokesman on deregulation, has made it absolutely clear that our policy is to renegotiate, challenge and seek to reverse the directive. We will go into the forthcoming general election wholeheartedly with that policy, and I hope Members in all parts of the House will do the same. I hope that they will demonstrate their commitment to getting this measure reversed.

Chris Grayling: I do not expect us to fail in our negotiation as and when we take office. We will succeed. Let us go back to Brussels, let us tell Brussels what works for this country, and let us demonstrate the sort of political leadership that has been woefully absent among Ministers in the past couple of years.
	It does not end there, though. The directive does not just set out an approved list of nutritional sources that can be used in vitamin products; it paves the way for the introduction of what are called maximum permitted levels for vitamin tablets. Members who have followed the debate know what a threat to consumers that represents.
	The rules on maximum permitted levels will limit the strength of vitamin tablets in this country. There are issues connected with the strength of vitamin tablets, and if we could be certain that the decision would be based purely on safety grounds, Conservative Members—indeed, probably all Members—would accept it; but we know that that may well not be the case. We have a very different tradition in this country. Our vitamin tablets have always contained a much higher dosage than those in many other European countries, where the dosage may be a tiny fraction of ours. Italy and Greece, for instance, have entirely different interests when it comes to deciding vitamin levels.
	I have here a tube of typical fizzy vitamin C tablets that might be taken for a cold during the winter. In this country they tend to contain 1 g of vitamin C, as these do, but in another European country the level might be a tiny fraction of that. If this measure does what it seems it will do, this tablet that I am dropping into a glass of water will become illegal in 12 to 18 months. That is madness: it cannot be right for consumers in this country.
	The Commission wants common standards across Europe. What it actually wants is Euro-vitamin pills, available for sale throughout the single market. It intends to set out by 2006 the rules that member states will have to apply. I have been to Brussels, and have discussed with officials what is likely to happen. They say that they hope safety will be the guiding principle, but they also recognise that the challenge is rather more complex, because the issues are very different in other countries. In terms of what will happen next, Members do not need much imagination to guess where the smart money lies. The provision has to go to a committee and be agreed by countries such as France and Germany. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment is already saying that it wants vitamin C doses to be limited to 225 mg—less than a quarter of the strength of a typical tablet in this country. It wants to cut the content of zinc tablets to one tenth the level that our own Food Standards Agency says is acceptable.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend will doubtless agree that our Government's spinelessness in challenging the European Commission on these issues is disappointing. Many other Governments are willing to challenge the Commission when their interests are at stake, and it is about time that ours started doing the same.
	What have the Government done to try to prevent this situation from arising? I am afraid that the answer is, precious little. Ministers have led consumer groups and the industry up the garden path on this issue. A year ago, I urged the Minister responsible for public health to discuss the problem with the European Commission to see whether the impact of the directive could be mitigated. She promised the industry that she would intervene with the Commissioner, but nothing happened. She was asked again, and still nothing happened. In the end, I went to see the Commissioner myself. If Her Majesty's Government could not be bothered to do that on Britain's behalf, Her Majesty's Opposition could.
	I discussed the problem with the Commissioner and his officials. They listened carefully, but told me that our conversation should have been held two years previously. I hope that Ministers will say why that conversation was not held two years previously. Where were the Government, when they still had the chance to make a difference? How many times did Ministers intervene to try and improve the directive? Did they instruct our embassies in European capitals to make representations to our European partners? What did they do?
	I became Opposition health spokesman in 2002. I remember having a meeting with the Food Standards Agency, and being told that we had secured the best deal available. However, it was a pretty poor deal.
	Not much has changed. As we hold this debate today, the European Court in Strasbourg is considering a case brought by the industry in this country that argues that the directive is illegal. Did the Government back the case, and encourage it? No, they did not. I discovered that they were not enthusiastic about the case, but instead entered a submission that was both clear and stark. They argued that the directive was proportionate and a good starting point, and that it was consistent with the principles of subsidiarity. What a betrayal of British consumers.

David Tredinnick: I rise to help my hon. Friend. The ghastly truth is that, despite pressure, the Department of Health flatly refused to see anyone—manufacturer or colleague—about this subject until the summer of 2002. On 17 June of that year, the Department agreed to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). The reason was that the Minister's predecessor was due to appear before Standing Committee C the next day, and the Government were nervous about being made to look ridiculous. They were determined not to address the issue, but were forced to do so by a Committee of this House.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a valuable contribution, which demonstrates the complete absence of leadership in this matter.
	The most revealing response to questions about the directive from hon. Members came when the Government told my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), in September 2003, that the UK had no choice about implementing the food supplement directive because of our obligations under the European treaty. That shows a blind acceptance that there was no alternative to the directive.
	However, other countries do not take that approach. They are willing to challenge the Commission, and have done so on many occasions—in respect of the sale of British beef, for example, or the payment of subsidies to large companies, or the stability and growth pact. Why are we always too spineless to say no?
	That is what the motion is about. No one wants to break treaty obligations, and we all want a constructive relationship with our European partners, but that is not a reason for blindly accepting changes that will have such a negative effect on the people whom we represent. They do not want those changes, and it is time for us to say, "Enough!"
	The motion would not repeal the food supplement directive, but it would instruct the Government to renegotiate it. It expresses a willingness to repeal that and other such directives if our European partners do not work with us to find a better way. We could, for example, simply apply the directive to international trade and have a derogation for in-country sale of products. We could expand the approved list to include the missing nutrients. A variety of things could be done, with political will and leadership. We could secure amendments to the directive and ensure a better deal for British manufacturers and consumers, especially at a time when this country holds the presidency of the EU.
	If the Government will not seek to amend the directive, it is time that this House made its voice heard. It is here in the House—not in Downing street or in the Department—that the power to decide lies. It is for us to decide whether we are willing to accept or tolerate measures that the people we represent do not want. I have no doubt that in an unwhipped vote the measure would not have been passed by the House in the first place. In an unwhipped vote tonight, it would certainly be comprehensively rejected. The challenge now is for Labour Members. Whom do they represent here? Are they here to do the will of the people? No Labour Member can be in any doubt about what people outside really think. Now is our chance to start the process of getting rid of this unwanted directive. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there waiting for us to do just that. They are waiting for Labour Members to back this motion. If they do not, those hundreds of thousands of people will be ready to pay them back.

Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"congratulates the Government on successfully negotiating a final text of the Directive that works in the interests of UK consumers and industry by ensuring that products are safe, properly labelled, and can be freely traded across EU member states; notes that UK legislation gives maximum flexibility that ensures that as many products as possible can continue to be marketed after the Directive comes into effect on 1st August, and that all of the vitamins and most of the minerals currently on sale in the UK will still be available; agrees with the Government's assessment that re-opening discussion on the Directive at this point runs the risk of making its effects more restrictive and is thus against UK interests; and welcomes the Government's continued commitment to working with the industry on assessing the safety of individual food supplements, and to facilitating negotiations with the European Food Standards Agency."
	I warmly welcome this opportunity to discuss the Government's approach to legislation concerning the safety of food supplements and to defend the measures designed to protect and enhance consumer safety. I shall start with the history of the issue, because Opposition Members appear to have conveniently forgotten some of it. At the time the directive was signed, the industry recognised that it was the best achievable deal and it supported the UK voting in favour of the directive. More specifically, three trade associations support the signing of the directive by the UK—the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the Council for Responsible Nutrition and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain.

Roger Gale: We cannot be disingenuous in the House. The Minister knows perfectly well that submissions for a legion of products will not be made within the European Union deadline and that those products will not be available. It is simply not cost effective and worth while to make submissions for many of those products. Therefore, they will not be available.

Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no UK system for recording centrally adverse reactions to any of these substances? The Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), seem to have totally forgotten the precautionary principle. We are almost back to the situation that we had in the 1970s when people said, "I knew an old man who smoked 60 cigarettes a day until he was 85 and then got knocked over and killed by a bus. It wasn't cancer, ergo cigarettes are safe." That is patent nonsense and patently unscientific. We need to investigate the substances to find out whether they are safe, and the directive will allow the investigation to take place.

Melanie Johnson: I wish to make progress for a minute. Then I will be happy to take interventions. I am not suggesting that such questions necessarily apply in this case, but there is no systematic way of reporting adverse reactions. The yellow card system is not used to pick up the adverse reactions of these substances. People may take them and decide to change to something else without ever reporting adverse reactions or being aware that the adverse reaction had been caused by the preparation that they had taken.

John Redwood: Is the Minister's case the ludicrous proposition that there will be no restriction in choice because all products will continue to be sold under the intrusive regulatory regime, or is she making the case that many will not be sold any more because they are unsafe? She seems to be arguing both cases—she is certainly saying that more than 1 million people who signed the petition are wrong.

Melanie Johnson: I would like to make some progress, so if I may, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
	We come to the question of the operation of the single market. It is important for hon. Members to accept that between 1990 and 2002, some 29 infringement procedures were initiated in cases relating to food supplements. There were also cases in which such procedures were not initiated, although there is no formal record of them. I was fascinated by the gem on negotiation from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) versus his Front Bench. Is it not a delight to see how the Tory party still cannot agree on such fundamental issues? The hon. Gentleman would withdraw unilaterally from Europe on all fronts, but even the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell knows that that would be a disaster, as I noted from his response.

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman does not understand what has happened historically. There is an expert group on vitamins and minerals, which has produced an evidence base about the levels at which it is safe to take various of these supplements on whatever dosage a day, or whatever. Both the industry and the Government agree that that is a good evidence base on dosage levels. It is the evidence base of the expert group that the Conservative party is trying to abolish. It has been submitted to the European Food Standards Agency. We are arguing that that should be the basis of the work that is done on dosage levels.
	The EFSA has yet to produce its initial findings about these dosage levels. That is the state of play.

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members would not want to see safety compromised.
	I shall deal with the question of dosage levels. At the end of the day, when the FSA has opined on what it thinks the right basis should be, there will be negotiations and discussions. There will be work to be done. That process will take a considerable amount of time. We shall be batting for an evidence-based view following the expert group's work, which we and the industry support. That is our position and it will remain our position. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be the basis on which we shall work on this topic.

Melanie Johnson: Scientists have recently produced another report on mobile phones. We are not here to debate mobile phones, but advice is being studied by the Government, and appears to be in line with previous advice and expert opinion.
	There are still open doors for the industry on dossiers. The FSA has offered derogation for any dossier received by the deadline. It requires only one dossier to be submitted for each source, and it does not have to be submitted by a UK company or even in the UK. If we know that a dossier has been submitted in another member state we will provide derogation, and that has been made plain to the industry. The FSA has said that derogation will apply where a slim dossier is provided. On the question of costs, we are happy to accept slim dossiers rather than larger ones. However, I do not think that the demands of producing a dossier are necessarily too great for much of the industry. The problem appears to be a lack of action by the industry and a lack of co-operation between its members. We are not asking for one dossier per company—we require one dossier per source, and it can be submitted in any member state by any company.

Melanie Johnson: That is the same kind of argument as saying, for example, that we may as well legalise drugs because we are driving people underground to buy them. [Hon. Members: "It is not the same."] Well, it is a parallel argument, which I do not accept.
	In transposing the directive we are acting on Food Standards Agency advice. We must remember that producers are there to serve consumers, and it should be in producers' interest to ensure the safety of consumers. The measure has a more liberalising effect on the EU market. [Laughter.] Many member states have more restrictive regimes than we do. We are spreading the liberal culture more widely across the EU Ultimately the industry will benefit, with the market opening up to allow supplements to be freely traded in member states.

Melanie Johnson: Perhaps I have got my history wrong, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman's group recommended a restriction on vitamin B6 as a result of that work.
	The fact that the right hon. Member for Wokingham has placed the expert group on vitamins and minerals on his hit list of the quangos that the Conservatives plan to abolish is a classic case of shooting the messenger. Apparently, he does not like the message, although the industry does.
	I stress again that only one dossier is needed per source, and that dossier can be submitted to any member state. There is no reason why, in a few months, any existing preparation should not continue to be on the market. There is for provision for that and it has been in place for three years, so the industry could have acted on it.

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) alleges arrogance. Telling consumers that they can safely go on consuming products about which there is a lack of evidence is arrogance in the extreme.
	The matter used to have all-party support. There was co-operation and working together, which best served consumers and the companies. It is a shame that that historic all-party support has been broken down by the Tories, who seem keen to try to use the issue for their own political ends. I was interested to hear about the website contact on which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) commented in his remarks.
	We have a clear message, which is to protect consumers. We are proud of that. By acting to produce dossiers the industry can make sure that consumers continue to receive the products. We are happy to continue to work with the industry to try to achieve that in as many cases as possible.

John Pugh: The Lib Dems will support the motion, but it was strange and even sad that although the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) began his speech by talking the language of cross-party consensus, he then, within a few sentences, provoked party differences for polemical reasons. I do not think that that will help the food supplement case at all. [Interruption.] Anyone who wishes to perpetuate such an atmosphere and who does not like a consensus can carry on. We will try to argue the case further without xenophobia, anti-Europeanism, ulterior motives or undue hysteria.
	In most advanced countries, it has been found necessary to regulate the supply, sale and production of foods and medicines. The rationale for that approach is broadly easy to grasp. Both food and medicine are generally good for us, although both have the potential to be toxic at times. Thus, most advanced states, including ours, have regulatory bodies and regulations for foods and medicines. The object of most such regulations is to set minimum safety levels for consumers and patients, and to ensure that people avoid polluted food and quack and dangerous medicines, both of which proliferated in the 19th century. Most of such regulation has the thrust of being fairly minimal in its effects, because at the end of the day, not all the effects of all foods can be known in advance. I learned very recently that the toast that I have been consuming for years is positively dangerous to me. Ultimately, nothing is safe if it is taken in excess quantities, not even water.
	All such regulation is always complicated by the fact that the distinction between food and medicine is as an absolute. Both are usually ingested, but food is nutritional while medicine changes a bodily state and is usually not nutritional. None the less, both are chemical in their effects, and the effects of food are never simply nutritional. Good food contains other beneficent ingredients, including vitamins and minerals, which act on the body and can be separated out as food supplements, and which are, indeed, one of the bones of contention in this debate.
	None the less, the case for regulating what is ingested within any market, whether it is the European or national market, is fairly strong, broadly speaking. Such regulation is there to provide consumer protection and information, and so inform consumer choice. In a pan-European market—that is what we have: the single market, as set up by Lady Thatcher in 1986—the same case can also be made. I remind hon. Members that there is a debate about supplements and rules about them not only in Europe, but in the United States. Anyone who uses the web and puts the words "Save our supplements" into the search engine will be guided to an American debate that follows similar parameters to those of the debate that we are having here.
	A similar debate rages overall, but the nub of the issue is how regulation should be done. In passing, I may say that most of the debates of a European nature that we have in this country stem not from recent legislation, but ultimately from the Single European Act. In one sense, the European Union approach is precautionary. It allows nation states to uphold existing bans and sets safety hurdles for existing and new products. Clearly, the objective is relatively simple—to ensure that products of a doubtful provenance or about which individual nations have doubts are not freely traded. As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed out, however, the approach is not permissive. It does not allow products that individual nations have no doubts about to be consumed in those nations, whether or not they get over the EU international trade hurdles.
	The argument against such a permissive approach is very weak. One could say—I suppose that this is a counter-argument—that tolerated remedies in one nation would easily leak on to the European market anyway, but as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a far greater danger that unregulated substances of all kinds will get into people's homes via the internet, by international courier or whatever. There also seems to be a backstop in so far as EU regulations, as I understand them, allow individual nations to add their own bans or requirements on top of those regulations. In any case, is it not intrinsically unlikely that what is tried and tested in one country over ages will wreak havoc in another?
	Although many traditional remedies may be ineffective, they represent a kind of forgotten wisdom, which mainstream science sometimes rediscovers at a later date. The history of medicine is littered with not only errors, but with bouts of forgetfulness and remedies that are neglected and forgotten over time. It seems to me that dogmatism in medicine rarely pays, which is a point that is emphasised by the history of herbal medicine. A further argument against discouraging diversity is that it suits the major drug and pharmaceutical companies and suppliers, who work to huge economies of scale, just as it harms small suppliers and producers.
	Not standing up for the principle of national diversity is one of the sins that one can lay against the Government and their approach, but it is only one of their sins, and it may not be their major one. Their major sin was to agree to such an unnecessarily burdensome directive. The Liberal Democrats voted against the directive in Europe, largely because it outlaws 300 nutrients and nutrient sources that are already on the British market, that have had nothing proved against them and that do very little harm.
	The directive sets onerous and perhaps unsupportable burdens—we may debate how unsupportable those burdens are—and a timetable for listing nutrients. It also ventures into the issue of current dosage without making a fair case, a point to which other hon. Members have already alluded. Worse still—my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made this point—other EU directives threaten to broaden the definition of medicinal products in such a cumbersome way that it may include not only food supplements, but ordinary beverages such as diet cola.
	Food supplements is not an easy area in which to operate, and, at the very least, the Government can be fairly accused of not robustly defending the interests of consumers and health food producers in this country. At the worst—the health industry has made this accusation—the Government have acted shiftily.
	The Liberal Democrats will support the motion as it stands. The save our supplements campaign and the health food industry, which is lobbying so effectively and so hard, should take note that a cross-party consensus exists and it works to the advantage of many. However, the save our supplements campaign has tied itself closely to the Conservative campaign, which necessarily fails to maximise support for a cause that can be rationally, forcibly and fairly argued.

Kate Hoey: I am pleased to be associated with this cross-party motion, although this is an Opposition day. I am also pleased that the Opposition have decided to use the time to debate the matter. If they had not done so, we would not have had a chance to discuss the matter and vote on it in the main Chamber before some of the bans are introduced. I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats support the Opposition motion. I do not know why they have not put their names to it, but I am pleased that they support it, because it is a genuine cross-party motion.
	If there were a free vote today, many of my hon. Friends would support this motion, which is very reasoned. One or two of my hon. Friends attacked me by saying that I am, "Just helping the Tories." I am not just helping the Tories—indeed, I am not helping the Tories at all. I am speaking on behalf of the millions of people who have been treated shabbily since the House began to consider the measure.
	I was one of the original members of the Statutory Instrument Committee that considered the directive. Being a fairly honest person, I told my Whip that I would vote against it. I was, of course, immediately removed from the Committee, as were a number of other hon. Members—only three of the eight original Labour members of the Committee remained at its conclusion.
	We ended up in a rather funny situation, with one Member rushing into the Committee at the last minute because he had only just been told that he was on it, and another, who had not got round to telling the Whips that he would vote against, being replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who voted against anyway. Despite all those efforts by the Whips, it went through only by eight votes to six, having already been defeated in the Lords a few weeks before. It is important for people in the country to realise that the means by which a measure goes through the parliamentary procedures are not necessarily very democratic. We now have one last chance to make clear to the Government our view that this matter has not been at all well handled.
	The hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made very good speeches, and I do not want to repeat what they said. I cannot understand how we have got ourselves into this situation. I cannot understand why our Ministers and officials did not stand up more vigorously in Brussels for people who want to be able to continue to use such supplements. I cannot understand why other countries in the European Union manage to secure derogations to get out of doing things, yet we in this country always seem to go along with whatever it is, pretend to put up a bit of a fight, or even do so genuinely, and then lose and give in. We are in a similar position with the directive on working at heights in that we have ended up saying that something that was intended to apply to the construction industry will apply to mountaineering sports, while other countries have simply ignored it and carried on regardless.
	The food supplements directive is a classic example of the way in which Europe is becoming further and further removed from the ordinary experiences and everyday lives of our citizens. That is why I am looking forward with huge pleasure to the referendum on the constitution, when I hope that we will get much of this debate out into the open.

Kate Hoey: I want to get on and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
	Let me read out some brief quotes from people who will be affected by the directive. More and more of those who suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis find that alternative and complementary medicine is best for them. One person states:
	"I have in the past been extremely ill with ME but now fully recovered and am in excellent health. I monitor my state of health very carefully and use a number of natural supplements. I would not only be compromised healthwise if these disappeared from the market I would also be very angry."
	People who use complementary medicine have not suddenly gone out to the nearest health food shop and decided, "Oh, I'll try this." They usually think about it carefully. They know what they are doing—they are adults. As other hon. Members said, it is amazing that we are making it easier to get cannabis and downgrading it and making it easier to go binge drinking, yet the lives of adults who have thought matters through carefully will be made much more difficult.
	Another person who said that they had been diagnosed with cancer nearly two years ago states:
	"The fact that I am still around today, and in healthy condition, is due largely to the regular ingestion of a selection of carefully chosen vitamins, minerals, supplements and herbs, and massive modification to my diet. And no, it wasn't the 'treatment', because I declined it all, except for surgery."
	Again, that person has thought the matter through. Perhaps, as the Minister implied, if such people look carefully, they will find a variation of something that is vaguely similar to what they have been taking. However, why should they when no one has proved that the original supplement is harmful?
	Another person said:
	"For the last 4–5 years I have been taking very high doses of minerals and vitamins and it has made enormous difference to my health which formerly was not good".
	Another had a four-year-old son who
	"suffered severe colic and eczema. Drugs didn't work; supplements did. He can now eat anything except dairy produce. We want to keep him healthy without further burdening the NHS."
	Such comments do not generally come from people who always would oppose the large pharmaceutical companies. An ordinary person states:
	"If the Government chooses to put the interests of drug company profits above those of ordinary people like us, they have no right to expect anything from us".

Kate Hoey: I am sure that when I need my hon. Friend's expert advice, I will come to him.
	The Minister has said during Health Questions that
	"the only reason to ban any supplements is, effectively, that they are unsafe . . . and on the basis of evidence."—[Official Report, 1 July 2003; Vol. 408, c.161.]
	I repeat: where is the evidence? Can she give us any scientific proof that the products that are to be banned are unsafe? She knows, as do many hon. Members, whether we are sceptical about Europe or very pro-Europe, that this policy is all about harmonisation, and we have ended up losing out because of it.

William Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has no doubt studied the manner in which the European Food Standards Agency operates. The cost of the dossiers can be up to £250,000. Does she agree that one of the problems relating to the so-called period of grace is that, after it comes to an end, even the vitamins submitted in the full safety dossier that are not on the positive list will be banned? I am sure that people will want to know on what basis those nutrients would be added to the positive list in the four weeks during August 2005. That will be the crucial moment.

David Tredinnick: The Minister painted a rosy picture of the Government's approach, and of what they have done so far. She talked about companies that favour the regulations and about spreading the liberal culture. She said that nothing would be banned and mentioned all-party support. I have to say to her that her approach is totally at variance with what is going on in the real world.
	I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who asked why the Government did not get stuck in. Perhaps I can answer that question by relaying the Minister's reply to the parliamentary question that I tabled two weeks ago about whether the Government would use the UK's presidency of the European Union to renegotiate the food supplements directive. She replied:
	"It would not be appropriate for discussion on the food supplements directive to be considered . . ."—
	basically because the Food Standards Agency had—
	"stated that it had not received representations from other member states".—[Official Report, 19 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 1029W.]
	That is the kind of funk attitude that has brought us to this sorry pass. The Government's approach has been more akin to a moth being attracted to a flame, in that they hovered round the issue for a long time without getting close and, when they did get close, they got burned because they were badly prepared,. That is the truth of the situation.
	The regime in this country has always been less restrictive than that in Europe. What we are supposed to have, through the directive, is a form of harmonisation, not destruction of the playing field as we understand it. For example, we are not expecting to see the destruction of many of the minor manufacturers in the market. When the Minister said that major manufacturers are on side, she neglected to say that many minor manufacturers will simply go out of business and that that will involve the loss of thousands of supplements. The point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall about potassium is real: although there may be potassium products on the positive list, the fact is that many supplements that are now compounds or part of products and preparations that people in this country have used effectively and safely for many decades will be taken off the market, so people will have to buy a new product that they do not understand. That goes to the heart of the problem.
	As I said in a brief intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Government's record in dealing with this issue is poor and borders on negligent. With my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and one or two others, I took a delegation to the Department of back in 2002. We struggled to get that meeting. Representatives of the manufacturing industry needed to see the Government about the issue, but the only reason that we got the meeting was that Ministers were being held to account the next day, when they were to come before Standing Committee C. That was on a measure dealing with the authorisation of human and veterinary medicines, and the two Ministers present were obviously not well prepared. I suggest that a much simpler solution for the Government would have been improved labelling.
	The positive list has attracted much comment. In defence of the Government's position, the Minister has tried to persuade the House this afternoon that most of the products that are on the market will be included on the positive list. To return to the point that I made about the remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, the positive list as constituted will not be able to include all the products that are on the market now. Estimates of the number of products that will be taken from the shelves range from 800 upwards. The point made by several colleagues about the costs of that positive list have been ignored by the Minister. The cost of putting in dossiers is astronomical and completely beyond the scope of minor manufacturers. The market will therefore contract. Will the measure benefit larger manufacturers in the drugs industry? Yes, it will, because many of the drug companies have shares in or control the larger suppliers of vitamin supplements, so we will see a reduction in choice, the eradication of smaller companies and, of course, the consumer will suffer.
	If we examine the measure, it is amazing that some so-called controversial compounds such as sodium chloride, which is used to kill pests, and caustic soda, which is used to clean drains, are on the positive list, while scores of safe, non-toxic ingredients believed to benefit health are excluded. We have already heard about silicon and boron, which will be banned entirely. Naturally occurring folic acid found in spinach will also be banned, while the form sold by pharmaceutical companies will be allowed. That answers the question about whether major pharmaceutical companies will benefit.
	On the issue of upper safe levels, the Minister has been in danger of misleading the House. I choose my words carefully, because when she said that the European authority responsible for setting those levels had not determined what they should be, she neglected to say that, across Europe, excluding the United Kingdom, the policy normally adopted is to have so-called recommended daily allowances. They tend to be lower dosages and are historically set as a result of the influence of the Americans in Europe at the end of the second world war, when the American system was largely brought into Europe. In Britain, we have always worked on the basis of maximum permitted levels. Nutritionists in the field who really know the subject, such as Patrick Holford, will say that those levels are vital for the treatment of certain conditions. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) nods in agreement.
	If the Minister accepts recommended daily allowances that will, probably, be forced on her, that will not be in the interests of people in this country and it will be against our tradition. That is why I say to the Minister that I believe she has been tempted into misleading us.

David Tredinnick: I am grateful for that, but I just hope that the hon. Lady prosecutes our country's case with vigour, on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
	The problem is that we are being asked to believe the Government when the record is really poor. As I have said, it took appearances by Ministers before Select Committees for there to be any interest at all. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) chaired the Select Committee on Agriculture—with great distinction—it had to deal with the vitamin B6 issue. The recommendation from the Committee chaired by Lady Dalton—not the Select Committee, but a Committee that dealt with vitamin B6—was comprehensively rejected in the end, and the idea that we should have low levels of the vitamin was thrown out.
	The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said there was no problem with high levels of vitamin B6, because it could always be passed out of the body but the input, not the output, is what we should worry about. Less well-off people have to buy many more vitamin supplements, so they represent a tax on poorer people. Of course, they can buy them through the internet now.
	The Government also failed on MLX 249, a document that proposed banning many popular and safe supplements and granting much more authority to the Medicines Control Agency. It proposed that the MCA should act as judge and jury. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East and I attended a rally in Trafalgar square where thousands of people opposed those proposals. We could hear them chanting "Tony, we want the right to choose." That was in 1999, so the issue has been running for a long time.

Diane Abbott: I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak in support of this measured and modest motion. Of the many issues that we will debate this week and in the weeks to come, this one gives the most cause for public concern, particularly on the part of those who perhaps do not take much interest in formal party politics. I congratulate the supporters of this motion on enabling the House to debate an issue that the public genuinely want debated.
	Ministers need to remember that one of the phenomena of the past decade has been the appearance on the political agenda of health, nutrition and food issues. Indeed, I cannot remember a time when the public were more concerned about such issues. Those of us who are parents—and who perhaps have poor diets ourselves—take a particular interest in nutrition, the amount of preservatives in food and the amount of processed food available, as well as in the lack of access on the part of our poorest communities to fresh, unadulterated food. Such concerns have led to the emergence of an interest in vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements.
	In the past few months, I have received more letters, e-mails and other communications from the public about this issue than I have about many others. Ministers said that certain Members are spreading concern about it, but in fact the pressure is coming from our constituents, which is why it is important that we have this debate today. It is difficult to explain to them that they face having limited or no access to the vitamins, minerals and supplements on which they depend, when at the same time the Government are trying to introduce 24-hour drinking, despite the well-known health effects of alcohol. How can we say that our only concern is to protect health when we are legislating to allow people to drink themselves into a stupor 24 hours a day?
	One consequence of the directive will be to force people to purchase such products on the internet, where there are far fewer controls, inspections and guarantees of product safety. This measure is being advanced more in an effort to satisfy the interests of pharmaceutical companies than to satisfy our constituents' need and desire for access to a wide range of vitamins, minerals and other supplements. I should also point out that people have been taking such products for many years, with no report of ill effects.
	Although I do not share the passionate anti-European views of many Conservative—and, indeed, Labour—Members, I consider myself mildly Eurosceptic. Ministers must consider why public opinion has moved away from Europe since 1997. It is because of matters such as this, which seem minor to Ministers but adversely affect millions of people. The public are aware that Europe intervened in this matter, but it is not clear that Ministers stood up for our people's interests.
	This matter is very important to my constituents and I have heard from many of them in recent weeks and months. The motion is a modest one and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider their position and withdraw their amendment.

Roger Gale: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and want to carry on in the same vein. This is not a party political debate. I do not want to score Tory points, or any other points. I am here to speak for my constituents, hundreds—if not thousands—of whom use herbal food shops in my area. They buy products that they and their families have used for many years, as the hon. Lady described.
	I intervened on the Minister to suggest that she risked being disingenuous by saying that there was no danger that products would be banned. She seemed to hint that I did not understand the difference between a product and an ingredient, which is like saying that I do not see the difference between an egg and an omelette. One needs ingredients to make a product. Removing access to the ingredients effectively removes access to the product. That is what will happen, although the Minister does not seem to want to understand that.
	It was claimed earlier that vitamin A can kill, and that is true, but so can tea. Tea is a herbal infusion but, like almost anything else taken through the mouth, it can kill if consumed to excess. One would have to drink a heck of a lot of it, but the medical records suggest that people have died from drinking too much tea. Coffee can kill too, as can all sorts of things that we consume. So far, the Minister—or the Government, or Europe—has offered no evidence to suggest that the proscribed list under discussion this evening has ever killed anyone.
	No scientific evidence has been offered to support the Government's ludicrous argument that people will buy products that harm them. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that she had one such product in her pocket. As a mature adult, she is entitled to choose to use it. The Government's response to the directive is an example of the nanny state rolling over with its paws in the air and allowing its tummy to be rubbed by the nanny superstate.
	In whose interests is the Government's response? The Minister for Public Health said that the directive had been adopted in the interests of public health and safety, but she did not say why the public would be in any way unsafe. It is possible that some of the products used by me, my wife, my family and other hon. Members, for example, do us no good. We may waste lots of money on them, but that is our choice. The products have not killed me and do not appear to have done me any harm.

Roger Gale: I believe that some of them do me good, but the hon. Gentleman may need the sort of product that will soon be available at a bar 24 hours a day. That may give him more comfort than my speech.
	One hon. Member with a scientific qualification made the valid point earlier that all these products will be available on the internet. Is it better for me or my constituents to go into Holland and Barrett or Juliet Seeley's emporium in Broadstairs and receive excellent advice from knowledgeable people who understand the range of products that they are selling—in the same way as she and her family would go into a chemist's and take advice on over-the-counter prescription medicines—or to buy on the internet? If the Minister cannot answer that one simple question, she has to concede that there is no benefit in the regulation that she seems hellbent on supporting. It will do more harm than good, and she should be fighting it.

Tom Levitt: Before I commence my remarks, the House may wish to know that I am a biology graduate who taught for 20 years. I regularly taught food and nutrition, and I also have in my constituency a company called Nutri which produces supplements of, I am sure, a high standard and markets them honestly to many people. Like many hon. Members, I was contacted by several hundred constituents the last time this issue arose to express their concerns. Up to half-past 3 this afternoon, four had chosen to remind me of those concerns prior to this debate.
	I have another admission to make, which is that I do not often read Opposition motions all the way through, but this one was short and stood some consideration. It talks about the importance of a satisfactory compromise—not language that one often hears from the Opposition. The early-day motion that preceded the motion had a degree of cross-party support, and the motion mentions a desire
	"to protect the interests of consumers and manufacturers".
	That is a creditable aim. However, I do not believe that the unilateral repeal of the regulations is possible. The Government motion explains why renegotiation could be dangerous and produce a less satisfactory outcome.
	Moreover, the Opposition motion and the comments from Opposition Members have been ridden with the Euroscepticism that pervades that party. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) talked about a directive from the "ludicrous" European Union and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has been delightfully predictable all afternoon in his comments. However, Conservative Members should remember that we are in this situation because of single market regulations approved by this House under a Conservative Government. That is not meant as a political point, but Conservative Members should bear that in mind because it could be regarded as the source of their problem.
	The negotiations in which representatives of the British Government were involved for many months were long and complex. They involved bringing together 15 nations—at that time—with different rules, regulations, backgrounds and experiences. There was probably less commonality between their experiences on the issue than on many others. They were dedicated to putting a high priority on safety, and the result is pro-choice. However, it is pro informed choice and that is the important point. As other hon. Members have said, the directive will provide great opportunities for trade in the commodities in question, given the single market experience, for companies such as that based in my constituency.
	It bears repeating that the outcome of the negotiations was welcomed at the time by the Consumers Association, the Health Food Manufacturers Association and others. We are now talking about the implementation of the decisions. Every vitamin that was on sale in this country in 2002 will continue to be on sale. Every mineral for which there is no evidence of harm—evidence of safety can be produced in the next few months—will be on sale until at least 2009. Although a dossier has to be produced, we have heard today that it can be a slim one produced by any company or group of companies in any of the 25 states of the European Union. It is not necessary for every single product produced by every single manufacturer to be represented separately. Every licensed medicinal product is unaffected by the regulations.

Tom Levitt: I appreciate that commercial issues will be involved. However, organisations, such as the Health Food Manufacturers Association, speak for the industry as a whole, and I hope that there will be European equivalents. If there is openness and we can tell what dossiers have been submitted and if the Government know what dossiers are in the pipeline, it should not be too difficult for companies to be able to make such decisions.
	Six minerals do not yet qualify subject to the evidence of their being safe, but they still could qualify if the dossiers are submitted even prior to the evidence in them being fully taken on board by the European Food Safety Authority. Those minerals are vanadium, tin, cobalt, silicon, boron and nickel. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) told the House that vanadium plays a role in fighting diabetes, but I had no knowledge of that. I have taught diet and nutrition and I remember studying invertebrates at A-level and learning that only sea squirts had a biological use for vanadium. They have it in their blood. At that time, there was no other known biological function for vanadium. Similarly tin has no known biological function. Cobalt is included on the list, but it forms part of vitamin B12. Cobalt will obviously not be banned, because vitamin B12 is allowed. Silicon, boron and nickel are trace elements that are required in the diet, but there are no recorded cases of deficiencies in them. They occur naturally in sufficient trace quantities in the diet for them to be effective as trace minerals.

Tom Levitt: The Minister outlined what the dossiers were for and what they would have to prove. I am sure that the detail is much better known by the industry than it is by me.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell put his finger on what the issue is all about. He talked about people believing that these products did them good. I think that we are talking about an element of faith healing and a placebo effect. I do not criticise or condemn alternative therapies, but healing or health care based on belief rather than scientific evidence is a dangerous path to go down. I am not against people taking supplements, but I am against people making claims for them that cannot be justified.
	In my time, I have had reflexology, and I do not understand how that works. I have had treatment from a chiropractor—I do understand how that works—and homeopathy. Some of the elements and minerals that we are talking about occur in such small quantities that we are almost talking homeopathic quantities. Large doses are exactly not what people want. I was particularly interested in the intervention by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) when he said that he had taken zinc. It clearly galvanised him into action—a scientific joke for the House.
	When many of these products are in the diet to excess, they simply pass through the body and are excreted at the other end. They clearly do not perform a particularly useful function, especially in respect of the fact that people have spent their money on them. However, other products are retained in the body. For example, if carotene is taken in excess as a vitamin, it can cause discolouration of the skin and other well-understood effects.
	The people who have the most to gain from greater sales of greater quantities of higher doses of the supplements are the manufacturers. It is like the mustard principle, because the bit left aside that does no good—the excess consumed—generates profits for the industry. I am not against people making profits, and more profit will be made when the products are sold to a larger market, which will be possible under the commonality of the rules that will apply throughout the European Union. However, we must ensure that there is no medical risk from the products, which is why the precautionary principle is right, and that we base our recommendations to people on daily doses of vitamins, for example, on well-established scientific principles. Although I do not accuse everyone in the field or every supporter of this, an element of mumbo-jumbo is involved in the belief element of the way in which the products work, which can be dangerous in certain circumstances.
	Having considered the Opposition motion, I read the Government amendment. It talks about products being
	"safe, properly labelled, and  . . . freely traded".
	It refers to
	"as many products as possible",
	and hon. Members should bear in mind that the current list is not exhaustive, or the end of the story. It says that:
	"all of the vitamins and most of the minerals currently on sale in the UK will still be available".
	Reopening negotiations would not only lead us down a legally dicey path, but could risk making the effect of the regulations more restrictive, as the amendment says. Having considered the motion and the amendment in great detail, I have no hesitation in plumping—would you believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for the Government amendment.

William Cash: I declare a past interest because during the 1970s, I was involved in the field of complementary and alternative medicine as a lawyer. In about 1973, the acupuncturists came to see me, and I later discovered that there was a vast amount of discrimination against chiropractors, homeopaths and others in such fields. In those days, it was contrary to the rules of professional ethics of the General Medical Council for a doctor to refer to an osteopath. One can thus gauge the extent of the changes that have taken place, because many doctors today practise therapies that are generally described as complementary medicine. I am sure that most people think that that is beneficial and advantageous. Indeed, if we go back to the time of the Medical Act of 1853—I think—people who went on to the medical register, if there was such a thing, had virtually no qualifications of any description, so I think that we have made enormous progress.
	I was slightly worried when the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said that everything will be done in accordance with well-established scientific principles. I am an administrative lawyer, among other things, which is why I intervened on the Minister to ask how decisions will be arrived at. When such scientific decisions—they are well outside my knowledge—are taken, we need to ensure that that is done properly. Nevertheless, there is great prejudice and bias against many aspects of the field, which is reflected by what I discovered regarding osteopaths in the 1970s and what I know from being extremely closely professionally involved with it for many years, although I am not now.
	In the 1980s, the British Medical Association attempted to ban alternative medicine, and was supported by the medical profession at the time. The response from 150 Members of Parliament put an end to that sort of virulent opposition to complementary and alternative medicine. It seems to me, on the balance of the evidence—looking at the experience of my constituents and of people I know who have benefited—that a great deal of good has come from alternative medicine.
	Having said that, I ask again: how do the "difficult" nutrients get on to the positive list? By "difficult" nutrients, I mean those that are causing disputes between the various parties. That question has not yet been clearly answered. EFSA has its own procedures and mechanisms and the point that I have been probing, but on which I have not yet received a reply, is that there appears to be a considerable body of opinion among the advisory councils that tends to be less than objective in arriving at decisions. It is important that we know who makes appointments to those bodies, the principles to which they operate, whether they are entirely devoid of conflicts of interest and what decision-making process is used in determining whether a dossier will lead to a ban. I need not enlarge on that point, as I have dealt with it in interventions.
	One point that I do not think has been mentioned in the debate—forgive me if it has, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that today the European Court of Justice is to make a decision on the challenge passed to it by the High Court about a year ago. The case raises some important questions. If the Court decides in favour of the Government and decides that the regulations are effective, what would the Opposition be able to do about it if we took a contrary view? On the other hand, what would happen if the decision, based on the arguments advanced in the case, went against the Government and the regulations had to be repealed? The answer to the second question is simple: if the Court decides that a directive and the regulations based on it are defective or ultra vires—whatever grounds it uses—according to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, that is the end of the matter. However, it is not the end of the matter for the UK Parliament, or for the many thousands of people who want their views to be reflected in the repeal of the regulations.
	I was therefore delighted to see the terms of the Conservative motion, because not only does it call for renegotiation of the food supplements directive, but it indicates a willingness to
	"repeal the regulations if the renegotiation does not reach a satisfactory compromise to protect the interests of consumers and manufacturers in the United Kingdom."
	We could say the same about fisheries and overregulation. I would argue that we could say the same about the European treaties, as well. The European Union Bill is to be introduced tomorrow. The question I put to the Prime Minister the other day is: what will he do if there is a no vote in the referendum? Will he return to the issue that is before us? Will he do what is necessary to give effect to the will of the British people as expressed either in a referendum or by a vote in the House? That is the crucial democratic question that faces us all in the House and outside it. It happens to arise, as a matter of principle, under the provisions of the measures that we are discussing in the motion. The issue is whether we are able to repeal the regulations if renegotiation does not reach a satisfactory compromise. The short answer is yes we can.
	I do not intend and I do not need to go through all the reasons for that. There will be time enough to consider these matters both in respect of the European Union Bill, which will be presented tomorrow, and also the Constitutional Reform Bill, to which I have tabled some amendments, which is to be discussed in a Committee of the whole House next week.
	The fact that we are prepared to state that we would repeal the regulations, if it becomes necessary to do so, is a fundamental constitutional matter that the House, as a whole, must address. It arises, for example, in relation to immigration and asylum. The Minister for Energy and E-Commerce, who is to reply, has a great deal of experience in this area. He knows exactly what I am talking about. There are answers to these questions and there are two bodies of jurisprudence. There is the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which is considering this challenge today. It says, under the case of Costa v. ENEL 1964, that the European Court—this is endorsed by another case called Simmentahl—has the right to decide the issue of the superiority or supremacy of legislation in terms of its jurisdiction as against the laws and the constitutions of member states.
	On the other hand, we have a tradition, which is based on the fact that Parliament decides by a subsequent clear and unambiguous enactment passed after the European Communities Act 1972, that we can—this is in line with McCarthy's v. Smith involving Lord Denning, and Lord Justice Laws in the Metric Martyrs case—not only make such provision as we wish but, in addition to that, the judges are under an obligation to give effect to that law as passed by Parliament, providing that it is clear and unambiguous. The Factor 10 case is based on the 1972 Act and, therefore, is within the general rubric of what I have described.
	We are dealing, perhaps for the first time, with a serious motion that raises the question of the Conservative party being prepared to go down the route of stating on the Floor of the House, in line with what I have been arguing for the past few years, including when I was in my previous position, that it is open to us to be able to repeal or amend legislation that is inconsistent with that which has arisen from the 1972 Act. I do not need to enlarge on that any further. The importance of what we are discussing cannot be underestimated.

Brian Iddon: I have only two or three minutes so I shall make only one point.
	This debate has been raging since I was elected in 1997, starting with vitamin B6, and coming through to where we are today. Whenever I have tabled an early-day motion on this subject or whenever I have participated in a debate on the matter, there has been cross-party liaison.
	I cannot support the motion of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for one reason, much as I have sympathy with it. In my view, what the Conservatives are trying to do is practically impossible. This all started with the European elections on 10 June. Until then, the issue went across the parties. On 10 June, the Conservatives decided to bang it on their website and, using this issue, to recruit people. Ever since then, the Conservatives have made the issue a party political one. Since 10 June, and even before then, early-day motions have been tabled by six Conservative Members, who did not attempt to enlist the support of members of other parties, as I did when I tabled early-day motions on the subject.
	I cannot vote for the motion, because the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is being party political in the run-up to a general election. I wrote to the Health Food Manufacturers Association, Consumers for Health Choice and other organisations that appeared to support the Conservatives' views during the June elections, to say that I was disappointed by the way in which Opposition had behaved. They have wrecked the debate.

Howard Stoate: I, too, shall be brief. As the Members know, I am the only practising GP in the House, so I have an interest, to say the least, in this issue.
	Many of my patients take supplements, vitamins, minerals, food additives and so on, and, like the significant number of my constituents who have written to me about the issue, they believe that they derive great benefit from them. That has an effect on health care, as some people would rather take over-the-counter supplements and vitamins than trouble their GP, go to casualty or phone NHS Direct. The public therefore regard the majority of vitamins and supplements as a good thing—so in that sense I do not oppose their use, as they serve a useful purpose in society. However, that does not mean that there are no problems, and I should like to make a couple of remarks on the subject as a practising GP. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) pointed out that if supplements were not available over the counter people would resort to the internet. However, the internet is already full of drugs that should not be available in that way. I am sure that, like me, hon. Members are bombarded daily with internet adverts to buy anything from tranquillisers to drugs for erectile dysfunction and dangerous drugs to modify obesity, all of which can have deleterious effects. To say that the internet would be used as a refuge to sell supplements is a mistake, as we already have to deal with the problem. That argument only confuses the issue, and does not clarify it.
	I am worried about the way in which some supplements are taken. They are rarely taken in a standardised form or dose. The scientific evidence on their effectiveness and side effects is often unclear. As a GP, I often suggest to a patient that they take a particular drug to modify their illness and they will ask whether it is all right to take it with the vitamins, minerals and supplements that they are already taking. The simple truth is that I do not have the faintest idea. Up and down the land, patients wto know whether it is all right to take supplements with the drugs that their GPs recommend for heart conditions, diabetes, blood pressure and so on, but we simply do not have the evidence.
	As a scientist and someone who feels strongly that we need scientific research and data to back up the claims that we make, I believe that anything that can improve scientific knowledge about things that people take is for the best. I cannot check drug interactions for supplements and minerals, as there are not any research papers or evidence. I can check on my computer for drug interactions, but they will not show up there; I can check the established medical directories on drug interactions, but they will not be listed there. I simply do not know whether those drugs have a deleterious effect in combination with the drugs that I prescribe. If someone comes back to me with possible side effects, I do not know whether they are caused by the drug that I prescribed or by the interaction between my drug and other things that the patient is taking, and on which I have neither data nor knowledge. It can therefore be hazardous if people take those drugs in a non-standard form, or if they do not know the recommended dose. The House has legitimate concerns about that issue, which should be flagged up.
	Finally, some of those minerals have side effects. I have seen at least two patients in my medical career who had taken high doses of vitamin B6—certainly higher than the current recommended maximum dose—and had suffered neurological side effects. Fortunately, when those two patients stopped taking vitamin B6  the side effects went away, but at the time there were worrying side effects from the doses that they were taking.
	I do not wish to detain the House any further. I merely point out that there are issues, particularly as regards interactions with other drugs, which need to be considered carefully when the House makes decisions on these matters.

Tim Loughton: We have had a well informed debate—another Conservative-instituted well informed debate on the subject, and we make no apologies for coming back to it. It is an important issue for many millions of our constituents throughout the country. I shall comment on the contributions that we heard. I begin by welcoming the support given by the Liberal Democrats to the cross-party consensus on the subject. That was helpful.
	As usual, I compliment the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). Supplements have done her no harm. She looks better than most of us in the House, having dabbled in them, I believe. She emphasised that there is a genuinely cross-party interest. She did not make that excellent speech just to help the Tories. As she said, she should be entitled to use whichever brand of food supplement she has chosen to use, until and unless they are proved unsafe, which has not happened thus far.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), not surprisingly, made his contribution to the debate. He is known as the hon. Member for South Holland and the Barretts, as we know. He mentioned the effect that the directive would have on minor manufacturers. They will suffer as a result of the level playing field being removed.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made an interesting contribution and complimented what she considered a rather modest approach in the motion. I think she would agree with us that if the motion were put to a truly free vote in the House, it would be won. If hon. Members voted as their conscience told them and as their constituents are telling them in large numbers, the motion would be passed. The hon. Lady pointed out that the debate is important because it is about a subject in which many ordinary people are interested, although they are not naturally interested in politics and the political process, so it is right that we should discuss it today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made the perfectly reasonable assertion that tea can kill, taken out of proportion. One could also drown in it, I suppose, let alone drink the stuff. He asked in the interests of what or whom the regulations are being passed. The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) spoke from experience, with his biology background, but he made the curious assertion that the Government had achieved a pro-choice result. In fact, it will limit the choice of many millions of people who want to continue taking the brand to which they are used. His mention of the placebo effect of all these supplements, as he claimed, is more than a little patronising to millions of people who take supplements, believe in them and experience beneficial effects.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke in great technical detail. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made the extraordinary assertion that he agrees in principle with the motion and with the issue, but political considerations stand in the way of his voting for it. Finally, the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), with his experience as a GP, alluded to the problems of the internet. Even if he wanted to ban all supplements, they would still appear.
	After the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), there was a truly appalling contribution from the Minister, who failed to answer any questions about the supposed harm caused by the supplements that she is seeking to ban. She made the extraordinary Alice in Wonderland statement that this is a free country. That is not the case, of course, if one wants to continue using one of 5,000 supplements that may not be available after 1 August. She said the Government were spreading the liberal culture—by banning choice. We knew she was in hot water when she ended up on the subject of dodgy dossiers. She was completely sunk at that stage.
	There is cross-party concern. The matter would not be before the House without the high profile campaign and a great deal of hard work initiated in large part by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Save our Supplements campaign was launched in April last year. The matter affects an estimated 41 per cent. of adults in the UK—21 million consumers—and an industry worth £335 million. There was a petition that gained more than a million signatures and a postcard campaign, of which all of us, as constituency MPs, have seen evidence. Health food shops in every high street in the country carried posters and took the campaign on board. As my hon. Friend said earlier, this debate comes at a crucial time, with the case before the European Court today.
	I am sure that hon. Members will, like me, have been deluged with e-mails and calls from constituents ahead of today's debate. Let me mention a few that I have received in the past few hours:
	"This ban is ridiculous. It is a medical fact that vitamins and minerals form a vital and necessary part of our diet. As modern farming methods involve a large amount of chemicals, these naturally occurring vitamins and minerals become less and less potent."
	Another constituent says:
	"They are extremely important to me and my lifestyle, and they are a safe way to stay in shape for my sporting commitments."
	Another says:
	"Many people find enormous benefit to their health from supplementation, unlike the many problems caused by the pharmaceutical drugs prescribed widely."
	The representations go on and on; I have received many examples in just the past couple of days.
	If the directive is allowed to go through unchanged and with the full compliance of the British Government, up to 5,000 products could be banned from 1 August this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, if there is a real fear that items are unsafe, why do the Government not remove them from the shelves now rather than wait until 1 August? What are the dangers? We asked the Minister, but she came back with the absurd contention that we must prove the safety of an item before we have to prove its danger.
	What we do know is the names of the eminent clinicians on the European Commission's scientific committee on food who have prepared the directive. If one looks at some of the individual parts of the directive, one sees that it does not raise specific implications and concerns; it raises possibilities. On the basis of those possibilities, 5,000 products are to disappear from our shelves.

Tim Loughton: Absolutely. That is why I said that this was a £335 million industry, so a lot of jobs will be affected in addition to people who use the products.
	What discussions took place between the Department of Health and the Commission as to the level of supposed risk and whether a full ban is appropriate for this country? How many of the 533,527 people who died in the UK in 2002, as is catalogued on the Department of Health website, died as a result of having too much Solgar's pre-natal nutrient or popping too many folic acid pills? What recorded side effects result from direct consumption of various cocktails or quantities of any of the threatened supplements? The Minister could name none. What risk assessments have been carried out, compared with the benefits that many users, such as my sportsman constituents, claim to get? What are the precedents for using the positive lists on which nutrients and nutrient sources must now feature before being permissible? When did we concede the principle that all supplements are guilty until proven innocent?
	The fact is that there is no evidence for this move and no proven danger in a harmless lifestyle choice in which millions of our constituents have opted to indulge for many years, unfettered by Government and allowed the freedom to make their own choices.

Tim Loughton: No, as I have very little time.
	The same applied to the kava-kava regulations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth referred. In Committee, that product was banned on the basis of seven cases over the past 10 or 12 years across the entire world. Not one single liver biopsy could be produced in evidence and the prime suspect in introducing a ban was an 86-year-old who died in his sleep and had apparently taken a kava kava pill at some time in the past.
	Consumers are being denied their right to take responsibility for their health by using safe and popular specialist supplements of their choice. The Government have been wholly disingenuous. When the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety was an Under-Secretary of State for Health, she said:
	"We must get the right balance between consumers having freedom of choice and access to a wide range of safe supplements, while making sure, crucially, that we protect public health."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 100.]
	Where is the choice in this blanket ban? What is the evidence of danger to public health? What is proposed is grossly disproportionate. As the Leader of the House put it, the proposed ban is "unnecessary interference". As Sue Croft, director of Consumers for Health Choice, put it:
	"The Government are saying one thing to consumers, to industry and to Parliament, while pursuing a quite different course in its negotiations with the EU."
	The Government are being wholly duplicitous. They have the power at least to delay implementation in the UK, or they could use the UK's presidency of the EU to renegotiate the directive, as our motion states, but they refuse to do either of those things.
	Whom does the directive benefit? It does not benefit the 21 million adult users or the supplement industry, which is worth £335 million. What about the big drug companies, which are lining up in favour of the directive as they muscle out the smaller players? As today's Daily Mail puts it:
	"There's a clue in the contents of that approved list—by and large, vitamins and minerals produced by big drug companies are on it, while ones made by small specialist firms are not."
	The directive panders to this Government's increasing nanny state tendencies—if you can't control it, ban it; if big business does not like it, restrict it; and if Europe does not want it, do not resist and comply—fast.
	The real fear is what comes next. The Government's own submission to today's case in the European Court totally reverses the UK Government's position and states that the directive is both "proportionate" and a "good starting point". Spinach contains high levels of naturally occurring folic acid. Surely there is a danger of overdosing on spinach, so the spinach roulade had better come off the new Labour menu. Too many Rice Krispies, which contain extra niacin, vitamin B6 and riboflavin, will make you go snap, crackle and pop—surely Rice Krispies should be for the chop.
	Apart from all the problems with imports and the internet, how will the directive be enforced? Can we look forward to a network of secret cells of pregnant women who get together in the dead of night to feed their now illicit habit of popping Solgar pre-natal nutrient tablets? They will have to masquerade as the modern-day equivalent of the now-defunct Tupperware party to foil the possibility of police raids—Mrs. Smith from No. 31 stands guard as Mrs. Miggins from No. 57 smuggles in a false-bottomed Ovaltine jar containing Solgar pills, secreted in the lining of her Liberty-print maternity dress. Will we see special flying squads of supplement-busting police lining up alongside police traffic patrols to blood-test drivers for suspiciously high levels of boron in the bloodstream? Will border patrols be stepped up, with cannabis-sniffing dogs retrained to detect traces of evening primrose oil smuggled in illicitly from countries outside the EU?
	The trouble is that the police are too busy preparing to chase people in pink coats on horseback, knocking on doors demanding to search for red marks on children's backsides and arresting dutiful husbands who change a plug socket in their kitchen at the infinitesimal risk of harming themselves. The whole prospect is absurd nonsense, and it would be laughable if the regulations that we are debating today were anything other than a real and imminent threat to the liberty of responsible grown ups who have chosen to supplement their diets with vitamins and other non-prescription medications, because they believe that those products do more good than harm—if people believed otherwise, they would not buy such products.
	There is no problem here that cannot be addressed by better labelling, information about nutrient contents, recommended daily doses and warnings about possible health risks. The directive is a solution looking for a problem, but the problem exists only in the petty, nannying, bureaucratic, Euro-subservient minds of Ministers, who are out of touch with their constituents and what ordinary people choose to do with their own lives, and out of credibility when they discuss freedom and choice. This is dodgy science from a dodgy Government; hon. Members should have none of it and vote for the cross-party motion.

Mike O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] A Conservative Front Bencher says, "Answer that", but I am not sure whether the previous speech contained anything of substance worth answering.
	The debate has been interesting, with strong contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) gave us the benefit of his knowledge of biology and nutrition, which derives from his being a teacher. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) is a practising GP, and he set out his concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) took a different view, but he does not support the Opposition motion.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) also took a different view. Some hon. Members on the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party contributed, in particular the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who made an elegant legal argument—as usual. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who has a long interest in the issue, made a strong contribution.
	This is a serious subject for those of us who recognise the importance of issues to do with vitamins and food supplements, and it is sad that the Conservatives are using it as fodder for a cheap party political, pre-election bit of knockabout. Scare stories are being run whereby vulnerable people who rely on various supplements are being told by Conservative political opportunists—and, let me add, by some decent and well-meaning people too—that their vitamin or food supplements will be banned on 1 August, yet for the most part that is not true.In fact, the Conservatives were quite careful in their choice of words—they said that these products "could" or "may" be banned, raising fears without actually saying that they will be banned.

Rob Marris: Is not the problem with the Conservatives, as typified by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), that they completely reject the spirit of scientific inquiry? He asserted that these substances are harmless, but does not wish to engage in a process to get the evidence to find out whether that is the case. The directive will enable us to get that evidence.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. This is to do with the extent to which we develop consumer protection. We want to do that in a sensible way that not only allows people to have a wide choice in the supplements that they use but reassures them that those products are safe. In respect of products that might fall outside one of the prescribed lists, there is a procedure that can prevent that from happening, at least until 2009 and, in many cases, indefinitely.
	We need more facts and less alarmist rhetoric. There are problems with the directive—we have always been clear about that. It was the result of a hard-fought negotiation in which other member states sought a much more restrictive regime but did not get it. We got much of what the industry asked us to get. That is why, when we signed up to the directive, the various trade associations in the vitamins and minerals industry supported our doing so. Their views may have changed since in some cases, but they supported us then.

Mike O'Brien: No, I want to make progress.
	In the negotiations, we got much of what the industry requested. The directive is sufficiently flexible to ensure that no vitamin or mineral that is currently on sale in British shops must cease to be sold after 1 August. Either the ingredients are on one of the two prescribed lists or a dossier can be submitted that enables them to be assessed as safe by the European Food Safety Agency, in which case they can continue to be on sale until 2009. Provided that they are found to be safe, they can continue to be on sale indefinitely.
	I shall consider the best approach for the industry and consumers shortly. First, let me deal with Conservative claims that we can reopen negotiations or revoke the directive. Conservative Members offer revocation as a false panacea, although I noticed that, when repeatedly pressed by the hon. Member for Stone to commit to revoking the directive, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) wriggled and writhed out of promising consumers that they would do that. They propose revocation in the motion but failed to say that they would do it when asked by the hon. Member for Stone.
	I invite the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to intervene and say what he failed to say when he was repeatedly asked to do so earlier. I offer him the opportunity. He will not take it. Why has he tabled a motion that he is not prepared to defend? The answer is cynicism. It may serve the short-term purposes of the Eurosceptic Tory party in the run-up to a general election but it will cost the taxpayer and the consumer dear.
	If we did as the motion suggests, we would be in serious breach of obligations under the European communities treaty and the Single Market Act, to which past Conservative Governments signed up. We would attract infraction proceedings from the European Commission and taxpayers would be likely to be hit by heavy fines. Other member states could also initiate action under article 227 and, ultimately, the UK would be obliged to enforce the directive or take the route that the hon. Member for Stone offers: withdrawal from Europe. Revocation would leave us in a weaker position because we would be unlikely to have submitted the important dossiers to keep the products on the market. Clearly, that would damage the industry in the long term.
	Let me consider the idea of renegotiating the directive. To do that, we would need a qualified majority of member states. The only likely qualified majority at the moment is for a more restrictive directive. The trade associations urged the UK Government to support the directive at the conclusion of the negotiations three years ago because it was clear that we had got as many concessions as we were likely to get. If we pushed any further, things would become much more restrictive.
	The only two countries with a similar market to the UK for vitamins and minerals are Ireland and Holland. Neither country has asked to reopen negotiations on the directive. Even if they were reopened, we would be faced with a vast majority of member states that sought a more restrictive outcome, not the more liberal result that the Conservatives promise. We got several concessions in the initial negotiation and Conservatives' proposals would put them at risk. Consumers who rely on the supplements would be at risk because of Conservative policy.
	The concessions include time scales for implementation, the ability to keep products on the market until the EFSA had ruled on them, and the guarantee that the dossier presented by 12 July need not be exhaustive. We also got a substantial lead-in time to enable our industry to present its arguments on vitamins and minerals.
	On the presidency, the Conservatives have left it a bit late to make their requests. The law is effected from 1 August, a month after the start of the UK presidency. The idea that we could renegotiate a complex directive, especially when most member states would want to be more restrictive than the suggested time scale, is nonsense. The Conservatives are leading the consumer groups, the industry and the electorate up the garden path. That is why I reject the scare stories that Conservatives peddle to appease their Eurosceptic wing. Their motion does not even reflect their policy, for which they are not prepared to stand up.
	Our aim is to ensure that the directive is implemented in a way that allows consumers to continue to use the products that they use now. By contrast, the Conservatives are offering renegotiation with no realistic prospect of success, or the prospect of unilateral revocation, which would be illegal and result in the taxpayer paying fines—

Mark Hendrick: It is an indication of the fast-changing world in the 21st century that I rise to debate a subject that 10 years ago would not have been an issue because the internet was in its infancy. We live in a digital age—an information age—that has revolutionised communications to the huge benefit of mankind. However, all new technological developments, such as nuclear power, genetic engineering and computer technology generally, can be put to bad and evil uses as well as to good ones.
	The internet, chat rooms and e-mail enable people who are thousands of miles apart to communicate with each other at a cost that most people can afford and with a high degree of anonymity. That means that we now live in a society in which our neighbour in the apartment next door may be less well known than someone we converse with in a chat room thousands of miles away. That has dangers as well as advantages.
	In addition, cyberspace has become a powerful medium in which to sell products and services. It does not respect national boundaries or national legislation and by, its very nature, it can conceal the physical location of the source of the internet information and, of course, the author of such information. To legislate to regulate and control such an environment is a major challenge if we are to prevent the internet from being misused to damage people's lives and livelihoods.
	The use of the internet to promote suicide is a growing problem. I use the word "promote" advisedly, because certain websites, written publications, organisations and individuals are encouraging people to commit suicide for whatever reason. The tragic death of 19-year-old Sarah Cherry in Lancashire late last year is the case that first brought my attention to this tragic phenomenon. Early-day motion 170 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) highlighted the case of Sarah who, after discussing suicide in an internet chat room, purchased a book from Amazon.com on how to commit suicide and subsequently killed herself. My hon. Friend, in his early-day motion, called for legal action to be taken against those who write, publish or sell material or distribute information on the internet about how to commit suicide. I echo that call.

Mark Hendrick: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to come to the point he makes about libraries. In fact, Lancashire county libraries have taken the book "Final Exit" from their shelves. It is the same book that Sarah Cherry acquired from Amazon.com. Although it has been withdrawn from the shelves, Amazon.com has refused calls not to sell it and persists in selling it over the internet.
	Although that case brought the matter to my attention, the problem is more widespread than most people imagine—so much so that, as my hon. Friend said, the Lancashire Evening Post has taken it up. The newspaper has raised the matter with local MPs, including myself, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), whom I am happy to see in the Chamber, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley and for South Ribble.

Michael Jack: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the publicity that the Lancashire Evening Post afforded the campaign addresses another crucial dimension of the matter, namely making parents aware of what their sons and daughters might be up to when using the internet? The internet offers a private method of communication, but if people have it in their nature that suicide is a possibility, does he agree that the more parents who know about the problem through campaigns such as that in the newspaper, the better?

Mark Hendrick: I agree with my hon. Friend. Neither age nor geographical location is a barrier to accessing the information. The phenomenon can affect people of all backgrounds, nationalities and ages. It is important for the Government to take those points on board when they respond to the debate.
	Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery institute in Seattle, has done much work on the matter. In an article of 12 June 2003 on www.suicide.com entitled "Suicide Advocacy Goes Online", he notes that suicide promotion and facilitation has entered cyberspace and cites an article by Julia Scheeres from the San Francisco Chronicle of 8 June 2003. Wesley J. Smith's article says:
	"In 'A Virtual Path to Suicide,' Scheeres demonstrates how indifferent to the value of human life certain segments of our society have grown, and how callous they are when faced with a despairing person wishing to commit suicide. First, they bestow moral permission. Then, they teach the self-destructive person how to do it. Finally, they keep the suicidal person company until the deed is done. It is the modern version of the howling crowd yelling, 'Jump! Jump!' at the suicidal person standing on the skyscraper window ledge.
	This is what happened to 19-year-old Suzy Gonzales. Despite having a full scholarship at Florida State University and a loving family, Gonzales wanted to kill herself. Her suicide was set in motion when she found an Internet site whose participants 'view suicide as a civil right that anyone should be able to exercise, for any reason.' On the site, Scheeres reports, 'Gonzales found people who told her that suicide was an acceptable way to end her despair, and who gave her instructions on how to obtain a lethal dose of potassium cyanide and mix it into a deadly cocktail.' . . . The Hemlock Society"—
	the USA's largest assisted-suicide advocacy group—
	"has promoted the idea of suicide as the 'ultimate civil right' for years. And, just like the denizens of the Internet site taught Suzy Gonzales how to kill herself, Hemlock publications have long instructed readers how-to-commit suicide while its conventions regularly feature guest speakers who bring their newly invented suicide machines for conventioneers".
	The phenomenon of so-called copycat suicides and suicide pacts is emerging more and more on the internet. In Japan, two men and a woman were victims of a suicide internet website just before the new year. The three young victims, who were not named, suffocated themselves by burning disposable barbecue coals in a car in Mitama in Yamanashi on 30 December. The method—one of the latest to circulate in the suicide internet community—is disturbingly similar to the one used by a Lancashire man in August 2004. He died from carbon monoxide poisoning after suffocating himself by burning disposable barbecue coals.
	Japan has been hit by a series of suicide pacts formed in suicide chat rooms. A fortnight before the death of the three young people in Mitama, four men died in a Tokyo apartment following a suicide pact. Early in 2004 another six people were found dead and nine more fell victim to an internet group suicide in October. According to Japan's police force, a staggering 45 people committed suicide in groups after meeting online between January 2003 and June 2004.
	Suicide pacts have been made over the internet since the late 1990s and have been reported worldwide, from Guam to the Netherlands. Experts say that they tend to occur in cycles, with news of group suicides sparking copycat incidents, which are discussed on websites. On new year's day this year, an e-mailer to the notorious US-based ASH—alt.suicide.holiday—newsgroup, where people discuss suicide methods, revealed that a 15-year-old girl had used a method detailed on an associated online list of suicide methods to kill herself.
	The situation is becoming frightening. For example, on the Google search engine, if one types "I want to kill myself" and hits "search", the fourth result brought back is a notorious suicide message board, with long lists of people who are interested in committing suicide. Getting into contact with people that way is perilous, because people cannot be sure to whom they are talking via a message board or in a chat room—particularly people who are vulnerable and suicidal. There may be contact with a person who gains some form of perverse pleasure from convincing someone that they should kill themselves.
	These cases raise a series of questions about how people should conduct themselves when using the internet and what sort of conduct should be allowable. I shall not stray into human rights, because I do not believe that there is a case to answer in terms of people having the right to commit suicide or to encourage others to do so. The human rights arguments might hold some sway in the United States, where groups claim that they can conduct such activities legally and that they are protected by the first amendment to the American constitution, which relates to freedom of speech, but the same is not true in this country. However, I do have some questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond.
	Will my hon. Friend ask himself whether he believes that suicidal people ought to be talking to those who encourage or promote suicide, which could create—it might already be creating—a community of people on the web who believe that suicide is acceptable, normal and even, as some claim, a "human right"? I understand from PAPYRUS, which is an organisation that was set up to prevent young suicides, that suicide sites are not mentioned in any of the Government's relevant publicity material. Nor are suicide sites mentioned in the national suicide strategy for England. What will the Government do to discourage people from accessing suicide sites and will the Government encourage people to seek help?
	Would the Government consider setting up a regulatory body to which concerns about websites that may be offensive or harmful can be reported and pressure the Industries Internet Watch Foundation to act where it can? Should people be guided by the internet service providers to "help" websites first, before allowing access to suicide methods and information, and how can the Government persuade internet service providers to do that?
	Will the Government consider the case for prohibiting access to suicide sites altogether through filtering? That may hold some technical difficulties for internet service providers but the problem is technically no different from dealing with illegal pornography on the internet. Should it therefore be made a duty of the service provider?
	Is it time to introduce new legislation, as has been done in Australia, that makes it a criminal offence to use the internet to counsel or incite suicide? The legislation there includes a maximum penalty of 110,000 Australian dollars, or £45,000, for an individual. The offences cover the use of a carriage service, including the internet, to access, transmit or make available materials that counsel or incite suicide. It covers also materials that promote and provide instruction on a particular method of suicide. Possession, production or supply of that material is also covered. Will the Government consider incorporating some of the Australian legislation into UK law?
	Finally, will the Government consider actively seeking the co-operation of international police authorities and crime agencies, such as Interpol and Europol, to crack down on these sites?
	I am sure that the so-called peddlers of death can hide behind internet chat rooms and carefully constructed rhetorical arguments that are meant to mask their macabre fantasies, but it is the duty of elected representatives and Government to do everything in their power to pursue, prohibit and prosecute these promoters of suicide, even if the internet environment makes that task more difficult.
	The parents and family of Sarah Cherry deserve no less, as do the families of those who have already been victims of these people and their vile material. There are also those who face difficult lives and need help because of mental illness or suffering who may one day fall prey to this evil.

Paul Goggins: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on securing this debate on an issue which I know arouses considerable interest. That was evidenced by the fact that a number of hon. Members have contributed to the debate.
	The Government are well aware of the growing concern about suicide websites and chat rooms that can provide information and potential influence over vulnerable young people who may feel encouraged to take their own lives. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that Ministers have already been contacted by PAPYRUS, an organisation that has twice been mentioned this evening. It is a UK charity that is committed to suicide prevention, as part of its wider campaign to raise awareness of the potential dangers of such websites.
	In July last year, my colleague, Baroness Scotland, the Minister of State, met members of PAPYRUS and a cross-party delegation of Members to discuss their concerns. My colleague has since corresponded with them about what the Government are doing to try to tackle this complex problem.
	Perhaps I should emphasise at the outset that while my remarks will reflect the complex nature of the law in this area, I have the greatest sympathy for those whose lives and families have been touched by the tragedy of suicide.

Mark Hendrick: How could existing legislation be used against people who propagate this stuff from another country, and not just England and Wales, to which the Suicide Act 1961 refers?

Paul Goggins: I will come to the Suicide Act in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. Even if we are successful in closing down websites or removing websites based in the UK that promote such material, it could be accessed from websites in other countries, which poses a substantial challenge. We must therefore work with other Governments and law enforcement agencies where appropriate to deal with the issue. The internet presents us with a global challenge, which we must meet with a global response.
	If an individual in the UK produces material on a suicide website, and in doing so commits an offence, the prosecuting authorities can take action against him and seek the removal of the material. The difficulty is that the majority of material hosted on such sites, although considered distressing and distasteful by the majority, is not necessarily illegal. Suicide itself is not an offence, but section 2(1) of the Suicide Act makes it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure another person to commit or attempt suicide. For aiding and abetting to be proved, there must be participation in the act of suicide, as well as a knowledge of what is going to take place. Someone who counsels or procures is liable only for an act of suicide that is committed as a consequence of what he does, so there must be a causal connection between the counselling and procuring and the commission of the act. Establishing that causal link is fundamental to proving that an offence has occurred.
	If an individual helps someone to inject himself with a lethal drug or supplies the lethal drug knowing that it is required for the purpose of committing suicide, they could be charged with aiding and abetting. But simply providing information about suicide does not in itself necessarily amount to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, any more than providing information about ways to commit murder would constitute an offence. This is a crucial point. There are many works of reputable fiction which describe criminal activity, or indeed suicide, and thereby give an indication of how to commit the acts. Even though there is no intention to encourage them, they could in reality be the catalyst for someone who was on the brink.
	So the direct causal link must be clearly established, and it is highly unlikely that those producing these websites will participate in specific acts of suicide or know that they are going to take place. Similarly, in terms of counselling and procuring, it would be difficult to establish a causal link between the websites and the commission of actual suicides.
	An example of how this works in practice is the booklet published by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which describes the easiest and most painless ways of committing suicide. The court held that an offence would be committed only if the distributor intended that the booklet would be used by someone who was contemplating suicide, and that the individual was in fact assisted or encouraged to do so. Although the content of suicide websites, and books such as the one purchased by Sarah Cherry, may well be considered more objectionable than the Voluntary Euthanasia Society booklet, it seems likely that the same interpretation would apply to those who produce them because, in essence, they are doing the same thing—giving general information about ways to commit suicide.
	In practice, whether an offence is committed would depend not only on the actual content, but on factors such as whether there had been any communication between the authors of the material and the person who wanted to or did commit suicide. If anything, it might be even more difficult to prove than the Voluntary Euthanasia Society case where specific individuals were sent copies of booklets on request.
	There may be a greater likelihood of an offence being committed by users of the chat rooms that can be accessed through these websites, rather than those responsible for the sites themselves. For example, if a person asks in a chat room how to commit suicide, is told by someone else how to do it, and does in fact then commit or attempt to commit suicide, that individual may be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide or attempted suicide, although, as always, that would depend on the circumstances of the case.
	PAPYRUS has asked whether it would be possible to further test the law by bringing a case that would confirm whether the giving of information and general encouragement, whether through a website's actual content or by the user of a chat room accessed through the website, could be held to be aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring. It is, of course, for the courts to interpret the law, but we have drawn the concerns of PAPYRUS and others to the attention of the Attorney-General.
	As I said earlier, it is difficult to see how the law might be amended to prohibit these websites. Even leaving aside freedom of expression issues, it would be a radical departure to make it an offence simply to give general information about something that is not in itself illegal. There might also be unintended consequences for legitimate activities—for example, criminalising crime fiction, or even websites that may be seeking to offer help to those who are contemplating suicide.
	In conclusion, there are many things that we must do and that we can do. I chair the taskforce on child protection on the internet, and there are read-across issues there. The Department of Health has a clear role to play. The internet service providers also have a role to play. They have various policies in place to try to provide additional protection in this difficult area. It is complex, there is no quick fix, but the Government are determined to do what they can to prevent this kind of dreadful suicide.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock.